Our coddled, entitled children

Marian · August 22, 2012, 8:51am

I was born in 1955.

In my community, it was common for high school graduates not to go to college at all. Many got jobs right out of high school or went to private career-training schools such as secretarial schools.

But among those students who went to college, almost all “went away” because there weren’t good college options within easy commuting distance. We had a fledgling community college, but it didn’t offer much, so few people chose to go there.

As for the main topic of this thread, I think that my generation was WAY more coddled than my kids’ generation (they’re 26 and 23). I graduated into a world in which I had no doubt that I could get a job that would pay enough to live on. My kids didn’t.

Hunt · August 22, 2012, 8:53am

This was true in my hometown, too–going to college was essentially the same as “going away to college.”

mom2collegekids · August 22, 2012, 8:59am

That can happen when there aren’t good choices in the region. But, the fact remains that those who got to go away to college were the lucky ones because most didn’t have the funding.

My mom and some of her siblings got their AA degrees because there was a very good JC in their area. But only one of the 8 kids in her family got a Bachelors degree because doing so req’d going away to a univ. That one was able to do so because of his GI Bill.

romanigypsyeyes · August 22, 2012, 9:08am

In smaller families, which was the norm, it might have been more feasible than those with many siblings.

Also I believe Pell started in the early 70s. I wonder how much that helped with low income students. Now it barely makes a dent but I have a feeling it was different back then.

woody · August 22, 2012, 9:15am

Funny…my dad went ‘away’ to college in DC from NYC during the Depression. None of his 7 children did but we had commuting access to Columbia, NYU, Fordham, Pratt and City University of NY before open admissions. Pretty good choices all around. Yes, we all missed the college life thing but we survived. ;)

Consolation · August 22, 2012, 10:30am

I am not the one claiming that my local experience holds true for all people.

I am fully aware that things were not the same everywhere else. I grew up in a very affluent town where something like 96% of each class went on to college of some description. The vast majority of those went to 4-year schools, which almost by definition meant “going away.” (On a personal level, I only had one HS friend who attended the local branch of the state university for the first two years, because she wasn’t admitted to the “real” campus. She was devastated.)

The claim that the “normal” family everywhere was 4 to 6 kids and people with only 2 kids were looked at as unfortunate or strange is belied by the oft-cited statistic from our childhoods that the average American family had 2.4 kids.

It seems to be difficult for some Californians to this day to fully realize that other states simply do not have the well-developed system of public junior colleges and 4-year universities on multiple levels that their state had, and has.

I think regional differences come into play.

Pizzagirl · August 22, 2012, 11:46am

I think it’s not just regional, but socioeconomic.

My Missouri high school had a much broader range of where-kids-went than my kids’ suburban Chicago high school. That’s because the Missouri school was at a higher socioeconomic level.

emeraldkity4 · August 22, 2012, 11:59am

I attended high school in a posh suburb of Seattle. ( actually it is much more posh now- then it was just " the suburbs") But it wasn’t an academic powerhouse- more attention was given to sports, and the kids who were scouted were about the only ones going to college at all, unless their parents were super involved, which mine weren’t.

I don’t think it made me or my peers better people because our parents basically let us grow up without much guidance. I think it is better to thrive, than just survive.

Consolation · August 22, 2012, 12:05pm

That too. [10char]

mom2collegekids · August 22, 2012, 12:11pm

Consolation…

I wasn’t basing my post on only MY experiences in Calif. My H had the same experience in Indiana, and friends of mine had similar experiences in their states (Wisc, NY, NJ, Wash, IL, PA, & FL). None of us grew up in “rich areas”…we were mostly middle class with a dad working full time and mom staying home or working part-time once the kiddies were all in school.

We’re in the 50-60 age group, so Baby-boomers, so maybe that’s a factor.

And, Calif isn’t the only state with a decent system of colleges to commute to. It may have one of the best, but it’s not the only state that can provide a very good education at its satellite or directional univs.

The bottom line is that even the serious desire to “go away” to college wasn’t on many people’s radar back then. It may have been a back-of-the-mind ‘wouldn’t it be cool’ thought, but quickly dismissed because the realities of affordability smacked one back into real life.

Back then, it wasn’t unusual for students to only apply to 1 or 2 colleges…sometimes both being local. That itself speaks loudly about what was going on in people’s minds. Students assumed that they would get admitted to one or both of their schools, and since instate rates were cheap, affording wasn’t a big issue.

I didn’t claim that everyone had 4+ kids; my point was that neighborhoods often were filled with such families…and no, these weren’t just Catholics and Mormons, the Protestant and Jewish neighbors also had 4+ kids, too. And, my point was that this is more rare these days.

Nowadays, the people who have more than 2 kids are often trying to (finally) have a child of the “other” sex, or there has been a remarriage and therefore, more kids come into the family thru blending or births with the new spouse… I’m not criticizing that…it’s just what often happens.

ucbalumnus · August 22, 2012, 12:21pm

Here is another way to have a lot of kids:
[Pregnancy</a> History and Miscarriages | Free Sperm Donor - Northern California / San Francisco Bay Area](<a href=“http://www.trentdonor.org/pregnancy]Pregnancy”>http://www.trentdonor.org/pregnancy)

SlitheyTove · August 22, 2012, 12:46pm

m2ck, that might be the case in your area/social circle, but that doesn’t make it universally true. It’s certainly not at all what I see in MY area/social circle, where people have more than 2 kids with the same first spouse because…they really like kids, or they really want a bigger family, or their birth control fails, or they’re Jewish and are repopulating a family decimated by the holocaust, etc etc etc. I’m guessing that that last item probably doesn’t apply in, say, Alabama. Or, per the NY Times, that chronicle of life choices in Manhattan, some people are having more than 2 kids as a form of conspicuous consumption. Want to really prove you’re insanely wealthy? Raise more than two kids on the Upper East Side! They’ll be coddled, of course. :D

romanigypsyeyes · August 22, 2012, 12:53pm

I only know one family like the one m2ck. They kept trying until they had a boy (baby 5). All the other big families I know are religious. Actually, all Catholic off the top of my head. Or they’re single moms who just don’t care enough to use birth control. I don’t know too many big families though.

Pizzagirl · August 22, 2012, 1:03pm

You’re projecting what your social circles did to everyone else. 
In every generation, there were those circles where it was common to go away to school, and there were those circles in which it was the norm to stay local.

There were those circles in which higher education was assumed, and those circles in which it was more likely that someone would go to work or join the military.

There were those circles in which decisions were made primarily on money, and there were those circles in which decisions were based on providing a certain experience.

Those circles existed when we were younger, and they still exist today.
In the absence of actual data quantifying the size of these circles, I don’t know how you can conclude much has changed, beyond the fact that at the upper-echelon of colleges, it’s a lot harder to get into than it used to be.

cobrat · August 22, 2012, 1:08pm

Regarding college and career options before the 1970’s, it sounded like a mixed bag according to teachers, classmate parents, supervisors, and Profs who were young adults or grew up in the '50s.

According to them, college back in the '50s and early '60s were still commonly seen as for the scions of the wealthy(mostly private colleges like the Ivies/Little Ivies/etc) or the top 10-15% of an average high school’s graduating class.

Only exception to the last part was some midwest universities like UWisc-Madison had open admissions for in-state residents. While this may have sounded great, it was also accompanied by a weed-out mentality which eliminated as many as half of the incoming in-state freshmen within their first two years. In such schools, the orientation speech of “Look to your left. Look to your right. Half of you won’t be here at graduation/junior year.” The mentality there seemed to be “All state residents will be given a chance…but there’s no guarantee all of them will make it to graduation or even the 3rd year”.

On the other hand, according to everyone who was alive in the '50s, one could easily get a job fully supporting a family in a comfortable middle class lifestyle with a high school/vo-tech diploma. This bit has rarely been applicable since the 70’s.

Moreover, there was stifling social conformity in American society, especially in the middle and upper-classes and the widespread fears from the prevailing Cold War. The former has mostly been rejected since the 60’s era hippie driven counterculture* while the latter has been replaced by hysteria driven by those who are anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, and those who are unwilling to accept that they’ve lost the segregation fights of the 1960’s and teed off at the mere presence of our current president because of his race/supposed “foreign origins”.

<ul>
<li>Not all of it. I still see some traces of that in upper-middle class suburbia and here from some CC commenters.</li>
</ul>

romanigypsyeyes · August 22, 2012, 1:14pm

Really, cobrat? Everyone could get a job? I have two family members that would dispute that. Especially the side of the family that couldn’t legally live or be married in some states.

mom2collegekids · August 22, 2012, 1:16pm

I’m not projecting what only my social circle did. I don’t exist in a bubble. I have friends and family from all over the country.

And, I didn’t say that the experience was everyone’s. I used the words, “many people”…not “all people”.

* or they’re Jewish and are repopulating a family decimated by the holocaust, etc etc etc. I’m guessing that that last item probably doesn’t apply in, say, Alabama*

ST…I’m a Californian who hasn’t lived long in Alabama. My social circle and FAMILY circle includes Jewish members. I had a Jewish grandma, and my H’s father was Jewish.

Scienceguy1 · August 22, 2012, 1:28pm

Not going to lie. Because Housing was brushing me off this semester I had my father, a very intimidating man, call. I havent used my parents otherwise I dont think.

I am on this forum at work and I have been known to type in facebook on occasion, but I respect my elder employees. The blinding truth in this article!

Pizzagirl · August 22, 2012, 1:30pm

Well, yes, one other social circle heard from. Why are we all making generalizations, when there have ALWAYS been all kinds of different approaches and experiences to this topic? Plus ca change, in some regards.

Pizzagirl · August 22, 2012, 1:31pm

No one doubts that there are still bubbas who are upset that there is an Afr-Am man in the White House, but what on earth does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Our coddled, entitled children

CONNECT WITH US