<p><a href=“http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20041112-000010.html[/url]”>http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20041112-000010.html</a></p>
<p>Musings on SATs, College Drinking, Anxiety, grade inflation, current issue PT</p>
<p>This article, to my mind, is dead on, and confirms the assumptions my family made in bringing up our kids. We sent them to an alternative school, one with no grades and lot of crafts. All the way through 8th grade. Personally I think it was the best thing we could have done for them academically. No tutors, not for SAT or classes. Only one EC each, forced them to either organize their lives or suffer boredom. No cellphones until high school which they still don’t use. Very limited TV. </p>
<p>But that said, we made choices. My kids don’t enter high school having already taken Algebra I, and Geometry. They haven’t taken Spanish I, or Bio. So they will never be in the top rank of their school as their APs will lag. And that said, due to many factors we are still lucky that my D has the college choices she has. </p>
<p>In economics they talk about the tragedy of the commons. Also the prisoner’s dilemma. In other words, if all us parents would refrain from the tutoring and hovering and activities and pressure, kids would be better off. Just as if no prisoners tell on eachother, they are all well off. However, the one parent who does tutoring may get an advantage, and so the dominos start falling. One prisoner rats, they all start to tell on eachother.</p>
<p>And I can’t be holier than thou, since I come from privilege, privilege that had me assuming certain outcomes for my children. Ironic that what our privilege bought my kids was a return to a more innocent era, less stuff and programs rather than more. If I am making myself clear, what I mean is that since I was ignorant of the competition, since I just assumed they would be OK, we were able to avoid some of what what this guy writes about. I feel as though we, meaning this larger community of parents who want the best for our kids, are now really struggling on how to proceed. I think our best hope, even though the arguments are sometimes silly and biased and full of rage, are in the threads on stopping the insanity and finding peace with the full range of college experiences. But we need to make a critical mass, a critical mass of prisoners who do not tell on eachother.</p>
<p>As I have said before, I have come through these last months full circle and am now back to letting my kids make their own way. I have stopped telling my son what to do to get into Stanford. Better anywhere else than creating a needlessly anxious being. Just my opinion.</p>
<p>Don’t agree about the prisoner’s dilemma. My kids grew up without the programmed activities; after a long day of work, the last thing my spouse and I needed was to drive around town to ballet or soccer or whatever. So my kids colored, read books from the library, fought and argued, played outside after school.</p>
<p>They did fine and I feel no need to apologize for how they were raised. It’s only a dilemma if you look at the “arms race” in lessons and private coaches and tutoring and either want it for your kid, or bemoan the fact that you can’t afford it. We couldn’t afford it and didn’t want it so it was never an issue.</p>
<p>FYI-- mine seem to have turned out fine.</p>
<p>blossom. Don’t know why you say you don’t agree with me. You weren’t in the cellblock. That is wonderful. Your kids seem to have turned out fine. That is also wonderful and you know you don’t need to apologize. As I see it, it’s not that anyone wants the arms race, they feel they are living in a world of Mutual Assured Destruction. The irony is, those who can’t hover, or don’t know the arms race exists, are the lucky ones in some ways.</p>
<p>What a depressing, yet very familiar sounding, article. Perhaps the pendulum will swing back for our grandkids. I really liked my childhood - I call it the Charlie Brown upbringing - no parents in the picture anywhere in our neighborhood. It was great. For better or worse, kids ruled.</p>
<p>Mine too. Supervised play was unheard of. After the age of 7 or so I was free to go meet my friends and play at whatever until dinner time. We invented games, played 3 to 5 man baseball games, fished, broke stuff, pretty much anything but burn down the house. The 50’s WAS an ideal time in my little town.</p>
<p>Do all of you people think that the students with the SAT tutoring and excessive ECs forced upon them by their parents are the ones who are successful in getting admitted to the top colleges (as this is the goal the article claims parents are striving for in doing these things) ? Most of the students I know personallly who were admitted to these colleges are self-motivated individuals whose achievements were done of their own volition.</p>
<p>MOT - No, not all the kids getting in are like this. Some are. But more importantly, a lot of kids whether they get in or not are being put through this. And I mean no disrespect to the parents who do it - it’s completely understandable.</p>
<p>I had the Charlie Brown childhood having grown up in the suburbs in the 60s-70’s
I also had been sexually assaulted in junior high- walked past a potential pedophile almost daily on the way to grade school( he sat in his car exposing himself)- was raped in high school- selfmedicated myself with illegal and legal drugs- bored with school dropped out and frankly still haven’t gotten my life back on track if it ever was on track.
But my parents didn’t believe in ECs- for girls anyway- weren’t involved in my schooling and didn’t care to meet my friends parents. after all we lived in the suburbs- so everyone there was nice no worries right?</p>
<p>I think it is better for parents to be involved- even if some are hyperinvolved- than for them to allow the kids to raise themselves.</p>
<p>Here’s my opinion of this long, and frankly, rambling article. At best, it is farfetched and deals with an isolated and long-standing problem. At worst, it is preposterous and paradoxical. </p>
<p>The article’s premise is very simple - parents don’t give kids enough space. This claim is at odds with essentially every modern psychological belief - that parental involvement and communication prevent serious problems in life. </p>
<p>The author’s beliefs are tinged with the melancholy and melodramatic nostalgia of the “good-old days.” It’s almost as if the author doesn’t recognize his childhood in today’s world and somehow can’t identify with it. This involves the unsupervised play, the lack of skinned knees and the pick-up games of ball. It reminds me of the classic “I used to walk to school uphill both ways in five feet of snow” stories. " What doesn’t make sense is that this kind of return to the old, uninvolved way of parenting is clearly not beneficial. What the author promotes is total freedom for children, because “making their own mistakes” allows for learning. Well, what about all those children who get hit by a car while the parents are inside? Apparently, this is a mistake parents should let their kids deal with and learn from. So is something like bullying for example - clearly the kids affected should handle their own business. What the author needs to learn is that kids are kids for a reason - they are inherently irresponsible. Parents are also there for a reason. And while it’s not safe to baby a child all the way into adulthood, this is a gradual process. Teenagers today obviously have a lot of freedom and responsibility. The only thing that the passage tries to mitigate this fact with is the “cell phone” complaint - seemingly an anti-technology argument rather than anything. Did instant coffee create a generation of impatient adults? Did the beggining of the mail-system create people dependent (since now communication is significantly easier than before)? </p>
<p>The remainder of the arguments are arranged around the idea that playtime is being reduced in today’s world, but there’s no significant evidence to support these claims. The author creates a conclusion and proves it by these claims which in turn rest on the conclusion itself (the various “adulthood” test.) Circular reasoning anyone?</p>
<p>Concluding, we’re looking at an article that tries contradiction for the sake of contradiction. It encourages dangerous behavior earlier as opposed to later. We see drinking and wild behavior as a problem in college due to the fact that kids don’t drink and behave wildly earlier. Are there kids whose parents are a negative influence on them? Yes, but there have been before as well. Are there kids whose parents use their position and wealth to their advantage? Yes, but again, this has always been a problem. Worse yet, this article is discouraging to students who love learning. Some students, uninfluenced by their parents, perform well academically and take up a collection of activities. These kids are labeled “wimps” by the article, and encouraged to perform worse to become “stronger.” Right. The student with talent and interest in math should try to do worse in his class in order to become “psychologically” a stronger person. </p>
<p>I belive that the conclusions reached by this article seem to be very logical due to the generally competitive CC environment, but in reality, it is inconsequentual.</p>
<p>Those good old days were real to me. I can’t think of anyone who was hit by a car but we did skin some knees pretty well. Luckily we were out in an area with little traffic and many fields and woods to play in.</p>
<p>emeraldkity4 - My sympathies to you for having gone through all of those horrible experiences you mentioned. Your post helps to bring this discussion back to reality - there must be a happy medium between over-involvement and neglect by parents. No one should feel guilty for emphasizing to their kids the importance of doing well in school, offering their kids opportunities to try activities of interest, or being asked for advice on important decisions by their college-age child. The article is very thought-provoking, but in my opinion, many of the excesses mentioned apply to a very small group of parents, at least in my community. I guess I am wondering how parents can “make” their child study excessively or do activities than they don’t want to do.</p>
<p>
Of course. Popular journalism always pushes the sensational edge for readership - that’s their job. It’s our job to filter the sensationalism and look for the insights. </p>
<p>I do see people doing this to their kids. Maybe it’s because of where I live. If you all don’t see it, then I feel better about the state of the kids of the country.</p>
<p>And emraldkity4 - Huge congratulations for making it through what you experienced and keeping such a buoyant spirit afloat.</p>
<p>And as far as the pickup games of sports which the article says are lost in this generation, my son had a gang of sports-minded pals in our neighborhood since we moved here right before his sixth birthday. All of these boys were highly involved in organized sports, most at the travel team level, but they were also free to roam the neighborhood after school and on weekends and days off from school. And all they did was play sports, sports, and more sports (self-organized, they were not told by anyone where to stand or what color socks to wear!) - baseball, football, soccer, basketball, street hockey, and I don’t know what else. So obviously all of their organized sports didn’t burn them out from doing sports on their own. And they are in college now and they still play sports, at least at the intramural level. So I think a little exaggeration on the part of the author is happening here.</p>
<p>And with that last message I became a full member. I guess the days of the parties I used to see are over? Or maybe they are only for the 1000 mark? Or maybe now it is time for me to join cc anonymous? Returning this thread to its rightful owner.</p>
<p>The article painted a picture of very few of the kids I know. Sure, it is recognizable on this board and among the highly motivated that are attracted to it (a very small percent of the population I thought), but in my affluent CA area it describes kids mostly from the Asian cultures. The rest of the kids can be found at the malls and cruising around town in their parent’s cars. They drink pleanty and do pleanty of drugs. College (at a mid level UC for a lot) will just be more of the same. Is it really different elsewhere?</p>
<p>I will congratulate you on your achievement of becoming a Senior Member, Alumother. And you did it in a remarkably short time, around two months 
And I also return the thread to its rightful owner!</p>
<p>Alumother, what happened? I read your daughter is going to choose between Princeton and Stanford. How come Berkeley fell out of the picture? It’s OK, I might have chosen the other schools too. Where is your thread like Beraruh’s?</p>
<p>OK, back to the thread. :)</p>
<p>MOT - Thanks for the congratulations. I was afraid I had done it in a short time…I confess to having lurked from December on but yes, I am addicted.</p>
<p>dstark - Right now it’s just the difference between Princeton admit day and Cal Day. Princeton introduced her to the rest of the class of 09, in all their brilliant glory. Cal Day did not - it was just crowds. Although it’s minimal data, I think it is good proxy for the true picture. Berkeley may be too big for her. The brilliant kids are there, but she is going to college not just for the education but for the chance to operate in an organization, much as she has done in high school. And since she isn’t ready to specialize in a department for sure, there isn’t a small enough community at Berkeley to get her hands around. Berkeley may resurface however, she is really not decided here.</p>
<p>I haven’t put up the decision thread because I feel too lucky. How’s that for survivors’ guilt? And now, really trying to return this thread. Maybe I should post our decision issues, just to avoid any future hijacks:)</p>
<p>I think the article makes a few good points, but carries it all too far. It ends up sounding like the rant that, if God had meant for people to fly, he would have given us wings. We live in a changing society, with changing norms, and as our kids grow up adapting to this changed world, their ability to adapt is bemoaned as being the loss of some essential quality of maturity, whereas nonadaptive behavior is assumed to be a rusult of parental choices in upbringing. I mean, I would have a hard time believing that college kids today could possibly be getting any more drunk than they did back in 1970 when I started college… remember Animal House? </p>
<p>The rant about the cell phone is a case in point. I see the concept of the extended umbilical cord, but I think if anything it’s more of a tool to mollify mommy than something that impairs emotional development of kids. Bottom line, my daughter has a lot more freedom and a more independent lifestyle because of that phone. There is no curfew as long as she keeps the phone on and is reachable – after all, the point of the curfew was to know where the kids are. The kid in the anecdote in the article who called Mom to tell her about the ice cream sprinkles, is a kid who is keeping Mom at arm’s length by deluging her with trivia – there’s no indication that she needed Mom’s input as to what flavor to buy. My son went to college without a cell phone, and for his birthday that year I bought him one - as soon as I figured out that the phone was for ME, not for him. </p>
<p>Yes, the phone allows for more flexibility in social planning … a vast improvement over the situation I experienced many times in youth of arranging to meet someone, arriving a few minutes late, not being able to find my friend, and then hanging around for an hour wondering if the friend was coming or I had messed up by arriving late… only to find out later that the friend did come, but there was a miscommunication over the meeting place, and one of us was doing all the waiting at the wrong place. </p>
<p>I do have to say that our kids are probably missing out on the experience of getting into frequent arguments with their close friends over these sort of missed-connection issues… is that a loss? But that has nothing to do with the sort of long term planning today’s kids need to deal with in their very busy lives, where it pretty much takes the mind of a rocket scientist just to keep track of what they have committed to doing each week. </p>
<p>Personally, I think the cell phone allows parents to maintain a somewhat closer relationship with their adult kids with more frequent, casual contact, that is in no way limiting. My adult son has a job that requires frequent moving and traveling - the cell phone means that I can always reach him without having to nag or remind him to call me to give me his new address or let me know he’s arrived safely – which is what parents used to do back in the day. </p>
<p>What time are we harkening back to when kids were expected to curtail contact with parents after a certain age? It seems to me that in itself is a a distorted expectation of modern society – historically it was far more common for kids to stay near home or in the home as they grew, sons working on the family farm or learning whatever craft their father earned a living by, and daughters living at home until the day they married. Only in the 20th century did it become easy enough to travel long distances to allow for kids to plan on attending distant colleges - my mom went out east to college in the 40’s, but it was a 3-day train ride each way - and even when I was a child, people still used telegraph to communicate in emergencies because long distance phone calls were considered way too expensive. </p>
<p>What the article is bemoaning is the fact that modern technology has caught up in a way that restores the ability of families to have the same sort of daily contact that would have been the natural order of things in days when young people rarely ventured far from the communities where they were born. </p>
<p>So while I agree to a certain extent about the importance of cutting our kids some slack and allowing them the ability to learn to manage their own free time, I don’t buy the dire consequences that are being recited. If anything, the problems are a result of the overall stress level and expectations in our society, not particularly tied to individual parenting practices.</p>