Children in 1979 vs 2011

[Grey Fox]

In the olden days people hade more kids so watching them all was simply impossible.

I wonder if this isn't the best answer yet. 

I'd also factor in much smaller housing for families. Children were sent outside right after breakfast, seen for lunch & came home for Dinner.

[The Brain]

My impression is that families who could afford them have had nurses/tutors/guards etc around their kids a lot since ancient times. When I picture say the 17th century I don't see little noblekids running around a lot without the help watching them. I may be wrong though, it's not like I have read a huge amount about the history of childhood.

[Malthus]

On average, parents these days are older, wealthier and have fewer children. Naturally, a 38 year old professional parent with 1 kid is going to take more care of him or her than a harried 24 year old with three kids just starting out in his/her job ... for one, the 38 year old has the resources to do so. 

This level of care has benefits and drawbacks, like anything else. Much of the current angst over over-protective parenting is typical my-childhood-was-a-golden-age thinking, combined with kids-these-days-spoiled-rotten.

[mongers]

On average, parents these days are older, wealthier and have fewer children. Naturally, a 38 year old professional parent with 1 kid is going to take more care of him or her than a harried 24 year old with three kids just starting out in his/her job ... for one, the 38 year old has the resources to do so. 

This level of care has benefits and drawbacks, like anything else. Much of the current angst over over-protective parenting is typical my-childhood-was-a-golden-age thinking, combined with kids-these-days-spoiled-rotten.

And how much isn't ?

[crazy canuck]

On average, parents these days are older, wealthier and have fewer children. Naturally, a 38 year old professional parent with 1 kid is going to take more care of him or her than a harried 24 year old with three kids just starting out in his/her job ... for one, the 38 year old has the resources to do so. 

This level of care has benefits and drawbacks, like anything else. Much of the current angst over over-protective parenting is typical my-childhood-was-a-golden-age thinking, combined with kids-these-days-spoiled-rotten.

Dont think it has anything to do with a wealth effect.  Back in the day both rich and poor kids played outside until dark without any supervision.

I think the change is cultural and started with the child empowerment, child centred learning and on it went.  Within a couple decades children became viewed as too precious to be allowed out alone - everything had to be structured and supervised in order to maximize their development so that they could reach their full potential.  Everyone bought into that - both rich and poor.

I think the pendulum might be starting to swing back a bit now - I see a more and more kids playing outside in our neighbourhood without parents hovering around them.  For me the ridiculous extreme of all this was when the principal of our elementary school called our house to reprimand us for letting our grade 3 boy walk home from school (a whole 2 blocks) by himself!

Incidentally, I know the younger set here likes to say that every generation thinks they were better than the one before and its all a load.  But here is an interesting view by a couple of University profs who say this time there is some merit to it.

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Coddled+spoiled+students+killing+teaching+authors/5356614/story.html

Generation Y is stirring up trouble on Canadian university campuses.

No, they're not demonstrating against war, fighting for equal rights, or trying to reform university administration. Rather, they're demanding better marks than they deserve, slighting professors, and reading junk.

That's the view of two professors who have written a book called Campus Confidential: 100 startling things you don't know about Canadian universities (James Lorimer & Co., 245 pages).

Not all of the 100 facts and opinions are startling, but there's enough to hold the interest of anyone heading to university this year or helping offspring make the leap.

"Every generation claims that the next one has been coddled and spoiled, but it really may be true this time," writes Ken S. Coates, arts dean at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, and Bill Morrison, history professor emeritus at the University of Northern B.C. in Prince George. "Something new and nasty is going on with university students these days, and there's more trouble in store."

The authors blame societal permissiveness, child-centred educational and parenting styles, overwhelming materialism, video games, sexualized media, and the guilt of two-income families. It's not all bad, the authors write, because these new students are also more assertive and more confident than previous generations and not intimidated by professors or any adults.

"But they also have a deep sense of entitlement," the book says. "They often expect deadlines to be altered, want their explanations accepted without confirmation, and try to insist that course requirements fit their availability to do work. Not all students fit this description, but the general student population has changed."


The entitlement generation is killing the joy of teaching, they say, but students aren't the only challenge for universities. There are also declining admission standards combined with high-school grade inflation; interfering helicopter parents, who hover over their children; stiff competition for dwindling numbers of Canadian students and even tougher competition for international students; growing academic fraud; and confusion about the university mandate and weak leadership, the book says.

The 100 startling things are organized into short chapters with snappy titles, such as: Forget the BA, now you need two degrees; Canadian universities are all pretty much the same; it's about careers, not education; university fees discriminate against the poor; our math students just can't compete; eighteen-year-olds control our universities; PhDs don't drive taxis; the "man" problem at our universities; and Canada needs a Harvard.

The authors conclude by saying the Canadian university system is not in crisis yet.

"But even those who love the institution, and count us foremost among them, know that substantial change is in the offing. Universities cannot be sacred cows - they take too much public and private money to maintain their aloofness and isolation.

"Hanging onto the status quo is just about the worst thing for these vital institutions to do."

A book that speaks more directly to students entering university is The Naked Roommate: And 107 Other Issues You Might Run Into in College (Sourcebooks Inc., 526 pages). While it's an American publication, much of the advice is just as helpful for Canadians. It includes tips for dealing with a range of issues, such as homesickness, drunken/lying/indiscreet roommates, overbearing parents, academic clubs and organizations, how to get an A, time management, unsafe sex, hangovers, student loans, laundry, depression, and bad cheques.



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Coddled+spoiled+students+killing+teaching+authors/5356614/story.html#ixzz1XNBiR5Mc

[Richard Hakluyt]

I don't think kids today are spoiled rotten; more that they are denied autonomy and then compensated with loads of consumerist crap.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think kids today are spoiled rotten; more that they are denied autonomy and then compensated with loads of consumerist crap.

So you agree then?

[Malthus]

On average, parents these days are older, wealthier and have fewer children. Naturally, a 38 year old professional parent with 1 kid is going to take more care of him or her than a harried 24 year old with three kids just starting out in his/her job ... for one, the 38 year old has the resources to do so. 

This level of care has benefits and drawbacks, like anything else. Much of the current angst over over-protective parenting is typical my-childhood-was-a-golden-age thinking, combined with kids-these-days-spoiled-rotten.

Dont think it has anything to do with a wealth effect.  Back in the day both rich and poor kids played outside until dark without any supervision.

I think the change is cultural and started with the child empowerment, child centred learning and on it went.  Within a couple decades children became viewed as too precious to be allowed out alone - everything had to be structured and supervised in order to maximize their development so that they could reach their full potential.  Everyone bought into that - both rich and poor.

I think the pendulum might be starting to swing back a bit now - I see a more and more kids playing outside in our neighbourhood without parents hovering around them.  For me the ridiculous extreme of all this was when the principal of our elementary school called our house to reprimand us for letting our grade 3 boy walk home from school (a whole 2 blocks) by himself!

Incidentally, I know the younger set here likes to say that every generation thinks they were better than the one before and its all a load.  But here is an interesting view by a couple of University profs who say this time there is some merit to it.

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Coddled+spoiled+students+killing+teaching+authors/5356614/story.html

Generation Y is stirring up trouble on Canadian university campuses.

No, they're not demonstrating against war, fighting for equal rights, or trying to reform university administration. Rather, they're demanding better marks than they deserve, slighting professors, and reading junk.

That's the view of two professors who have written a book called Campus Confidential: 100 startling things you don't know about Canadian universities (James Lorimer & Co., 245 pages).

Not all of the 100 facts and opinions are startling, but there's enough to hold the interest of anyone heading to university this year or helping offspring make the leap.

"Every generation claims that the next one has been coddled and spoiled, but it really may be true this time," writes Ken S. Coates, arts dean at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, and Bill Morrison, history professor emeritus at the University of Northern B.C. in Prince George. "Something new and nasty is going on with university students these days, and there's more trouble in store."

The authors blame societal permissiveness, child-centred educational and parenting styles, overwhelming materialism, video games, sexualized media, and the guilt of two-income families. It's not all bad, the authors write, because these new students are also more assertive and more confident than previous generations and not intimidated by professors or any adults.

"But they also have a deep sense of entitlement," the book says. "They often expect deadlines to be altered, want their explanations accepted without confirmation, and try to insist that course requirements fit their availability to do work. Not all students fit this description, but the general student population has changed."


The entitlement generation is killing the joy of teaching, they say, but students aren't the only challenge for universities. There are also declining admission standards combined with high-school grade inflation; interfering helicopter parents, who hover over their children; stiff competition for dwindling numbers of Canadian students and even tougher competition for international students; growing academic fraud; and confusion about the university mandate and weak leadership, the book says.

The 100 startling things are organized into short chapters with snappy titles, such as: Forget the BA, now you need two degrees; Canadian universities are all pretty much the same; it's about careers, not education; university fees discriminate against the poor; our math students just can't compete; eighteen-year-olds control our universities; PhDs don't drive taxis; the "man" problem at our universities; and Canada needs a Harvard.

The authors conclude by saying the Canadian university system is not in crisis yet.

"But even those who love the institution, and count us foremost among them, know that substantial change is in the offing. Universities cannot be sacred cows - they take too much public and private money to maintain their aloofness and isolation.

"Hanging onto the status quo is just about the worst thing for these vital institutions to do."

A book that speaks more directly to students entering university is The Naked Roommate: And 107 Other Issues You Might Run Into in College (Sourcebooks Inc., 526 pages). While it's an American publication, much of the advice is just as helpful for Canadians. It includes tips for dealing with a range of issues, such as homesickness, drunken/lying/indiscreet roommates, overbearing parents, academic clubs and organizations, how to get an A, time management, unsafe sex, hangovers, student loans, laundry, depression, and bad cheques.



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Coddled+spoiled+students+killing+teaching+authors/5356614/story.html#ixzz1XNBiR5Mc

Come, come. University students these days more entitled than (say) in the late 60s early 70s?

These things are cyclical. I don't believe "It's really really true this time!" and the explainations in the article smack of blaming the attitudes of '60s kids on reading comic books and listening to rock n roll. 

But naturally, mine will be the minority viewpoint. Arguing against this sort of thing is totally hopeless, as everyone "knows" it is true.

[Razgovory]

Here's the UK's nuclear blast advice, "Protect and Survive". Do take a moment to watch this extract, it's incredibly creepy. The related links have the remainder of the film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXx5Y2Fr2bk

As far as I'm aware it was never broadcast in earnest, though this leaflet was published in 1980:

http://scyfilove.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Nuclear-War-Survival-Guide-British-Government.pdf

Your television really sucked in the 1980's.  Also you guys were really fucked.  In America a nuke coming for the US took a little under 30 minutes to get here.  We had some chance at a warning.  You guys had less then 10.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I don't think kids today are spoiled rotten; more that they are denied autonomy and then compensated with loads of consumerist crap.

So you agree then?

I'm saying that, in some ways, I think they have quite a tough time.

[HVC]

Of course there are more dumb asses in higher education now. there are more people in higher education. Ontario hit a record this year. People who in previous generations never even thought about going to university or college now go becasue society has beome obsessed with post high school education. If you stratisfied the students and cut out the bottom chaff to match numbers then i'm sure you'd come to a much better comparison.

[crazy canuck]

Come, come. University students these days more entitled than (say) in the late 60s early 70s?

These things are cyclical. I don't believe "It's really really true this time!" and the explainations in the article smack of blaming the attitudes of '60s kids on reading comic books and listening to rock n roll. 

I dont think you understand what was happening in the 60s or 70s - trying to reform society is significantly different from bringing mommy and daddy to complain to the professor about not getting an A.

[HVC]

Come, come. University students these days more entitled than (say) in the late 60s early 70s?

These things are cyclical. I don't believe "It's really really true this time!" and the explainations in the article smack of blaming the attitudes of '60s kids on reading comic books and listening to rock n roll. 

I dont think you understand what was happening in the 60s or 70s - trying to reform society is significantly different from bringing mommy and daddy to complain to the professor about not getting an A.

They wanted to smoke pot and get laid. "Changing the world", what little change occurred, was a consequence but not the cause

[Malthus]

Come, come. University students these days more entitled than (say) in the late 60s early 70s?

These things are cyclical. I don't believe "It's really really true this time!" and the explainations in the article smack of blaming the attitudes of '60s kids on reading comic books and listening to rock n roll. 

I dont think you understand what was happening in the 60s or 70s - trying to reform society is significantly different from bringing mommy and daddy to complain to the professor about not getting an A.

The "earnest reform of society" was of course only one aspect of the change in the attitude of students. Much of the campus revolt-type stuff was focused on 'making stuff more relevant to me, personally'. Not for nothing were the Baby Boomers called the "me generation".

All sorts of previously-unheard of self-indulgence on the part of students was considered, not just a right, but a positive duty -- nicely combining selfishness with ignorant, self-righteous priggishness.  This was a charge commonly levelled at boomers, particularly by their elders ...

You cannot be ignorant of this perception.

In short, every generation has viewed its own youth in the best possible light, and that of the subsequent generation as silly, shallow, selfish, over-indulged and weak. You know this is true, it has been true at least since the dawn of recorded history. It's simply part of human nature.

[Martinus]

Didn't you also learn that when a nuclear attack comes, you need to lie down with your feet towards the eruption and cover your face with a newspaper?

Is this what was taught in Poland?  In the US they taught the Duck and Cover drills which were later mocked for their perceived ineffectiveness.  From what I've come to understand about nuclear weaponry "Duck and Cover" seemed sound advice. True, if you are at ground zero and right underneath the fireball, it won't do much good.  But if you are several miles away ( which most people would likely be), it could very well save your life.

Yeah that's from the communist Poland's era. I still remember seeing these old charts printed in the 1980s, showing a guy covering his body with a newspaper, with his feet directed at the nuclear mushroom, in the "Defensive Aptitude" class (also a relic of the communist era which later got dumped).