Children in 1979 vs 2011

[The Brain]

The irony is that more people want to nuke Poland now than ever before.

[Martinus]

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

Also, it wasn't such a big loss to lose one or two.

[alfred russel]

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

Another perspective would be that the current generation is more prone to negotiate with authority and ensure that its interests are being served. What is wrong with trying to negotiate a grade, get flexibility in deadlines, or set up a schedule that allows for sleeping in during the morning? At least in the US, education is quite expensive and many of the students are being loaded with large amounts of debt. Why not forcefully challenge the institution charging those fees to be more responsive?

I realize that may make things unpleasant for professors, but it hardly seems a character flaw of the current generation.

[crazy canuck]

Alfred,

I see nothing inherently wrong with demanding what you paid for.  But that isnt really what is going on.  The same students that have their parents complaining about this and that are the same types whos parents are now showing up to employers etc.

The protective helicopter parents are more to blame then any particular flaw in their children although the fact the child has never left the protective umbrella of their parent even though they are well into their 20s is bound to have adverse conseqences in the future.  We are just seeing the edge of this maladapted generation.  What will happen when their saftey blanket starts dying off?

[Martinus]

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 think it's something along these lines, although probably has less to do with the number of kids, and more to do with technology allowing parents to keep tabs on their kids all the time.

The bottom line is that people are helicopter parents because they can. Which confirms my theory that parenthood is a form of insanity.

[Martinus]

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

The people in their early 20s are spoiled rotten brats, though. We worked much harder 10 years ago.

[Martinus]

Alfred,

I see nothing inherently wrong with demanding what you paid for.  But that isnt really what is going on.  The same students that have their parents complaining about this and that are the same types whos parents are now showing up to employers etc.

The protective helicopter parents are more to blame then any particular flaw in their children although the fact the child has never left the protective umbrella of their parent even though they are well into their 20s is bound to have adverse conseqences in the future.  We are just seeing the edge of this maladapted generation.  What will happen when their saftey blanket starts dying off?

If a parent came to a job interview I would throw him out together with the kid. Fortunately, I haven't seen or heard of anything like this happening in Poland yet but I guess it's a matter of time.

Edit: I guess I would probably give the kid one chance to ditch the parent and have the interview alone. If he/she refused then I would throw them both out, telling them "Sorry, we're looking for someone who is professionally and emotionally mature."

[alfred russel]

Alfred,

I see nothing inherently wrong with demanding what you paid for.  But that isnt really what is going on.  The same students that have their parents complaining about this and that are the same types whos parents are now showing up to employers etc.

The protective helicopter parents are more to blame then any particular flaw in their children although the fact the child has never left the protective umbrella of their parent even though they are well into their 20s is bound to have adverse conseqences in the future.  We are just seeing the edge of this maladapted generation.  What will happen when their saftey blanket starts dying off?

No excuse for parents complaining to college professors or showing up to employers. But the parts you bolded didn't talk about those things and sounded like professors were upset that students were trying to play hardball, and that made them uncomfortable.

[DGuller]

The irony is that more people want to nuke Poland now than ever before.

[The Minsky Moment]

Same. I told my kids this once and they said, "Well, how did you know when to come home?"

Digital watches.

[Strix]

I was not a child in 1979.

I was, and we stood astride the world like a Colossus.

 

[crazy canuck]

Alfred,

I see nothing inherently wrong with demanding what you paid for.  But that isnt really what is going on.  The same students that have their parents complaining about this and that are the same types whos parents are now showing up to employers etc.

The protective helicopter parents are more to blame then any particular flaw in their children although the fact the child has never left the protective umbrella of their parent even though they are well into their 20s is bound to have adverse conseqences in the future.  We are just seeing the edge of this maladapted generation.  What will happen when their saftey blanket starts dying off?

No excuse for parents complaining to college professors or showing up to employers. But the parts you bolded didn't talk about those things and sounded like professors were upset that students were trying to play hardball, and that made them uncomfortable.

The parts I bolded were for emphasis, the article as a whole points to these problems being the root cause.

[merithyn]

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.

While I don't disagree with what you're saying, I will say that not in my wildest dreams would I have had my parents come to my HIGH SCHOOL to discuss a grade, much less UNIVERSITY. The parents that think this is okay - and unfortunately, there are a lot of them - are a far cry from the parents of the 70s and 80s. That, to me, says more about the problems these kids face than anything else. It's inevitable that with this kind of parenting style the kids are more likely to mature emotionally slower, causing major problems when they finish school and head into the work force.

My brother is one who coddles and spoils his children, and they were awful kids. However, his son is now 22 and is a great guy. He's still pretty emotionally stunted, but over all, he's outgrown his issues as a kid, and in another five or six years, I think he'll be a wonderful person. The problem was that as a child, no one but his parents could stand him. That's not really unusual with this style of parenting. Is it better or worse than the type of parenting that took place when we were kids? I would say worse, but others would argue better. It, as in all things regarding parenting, is very much a personal choice.

[Malthus]

While I don't disagree with what you're saying, I will say that not in my wildest dreams would I have had my parents come to my HIGH SCHOOL to discuss a grade, much less UNIVERSITY. The parents that think this is okay - and unfortunately, there are a lot of them - are a far cry from the parents of the 70s and 80s. That, to me, says more about the problems these kids face than anything else. It's inevitable that with this kind of parenting style the kids are more likely to mature emotionally slower, causing major problems when they finish school and head into the work force.

Last I checked, having parents concerned about and active in their children's education is often cited as a good thing, something that is often described as important to childhood educational success. 

As with everything, this can be taken too far, and of course some do. But which kid is better off - the one whose parents care not at all about their education, or the one whose parents care too much? The latter may indeed end up spoiled or entitled, but the risks to the former are even worse. 

My brother is one who coddles and spoils his children, and they were awful kids. However, his son is now 22 and is a great guy. He's still pretty emotionally stunted, but over all, he's outgrown his issues as a kid, and in another five or six years, I think he'll be a wonderful person. The problem was that as a child, no one but his parents could stand him. That's not really unusual with this style of parenting. Is it better or worse than the type of parenting that took place when we were kids? I would say worse, but others would argue better. It, as in all things regarding parenting, is very much a personal choice.

There were spoiled kids no-one could stand in the '60s and '70s as well. This is not something unique to the next generation. Indeed, if you listen to your parents ... but of course our parents were deluded old fashioned fuddy-duddies. Not like us at all.

[The Minsky Moment]

I suspect part of the over-active parenting may be the consquence of a feedback loop.  College admittance has become a good deal more competitive than it was 20-25 years ago.  "Top" universities in particular draw ridiculous numbers of application and take tiny percentages of applicants; the result has been a contionuous ramping up of expectations of applicants who are now expected not only to have excellent grades and test scores, but also all sort of unsusal or exceptional extra-curricular activities, community involvement, etc.  It's a lot to expect from an adolescent, and so naturally ambitious parents program the kids to maximize their "resume" as a college applicant.  As the competition heightens, the programming process get pushed farther back into childhood (in NYC as an extreme there can be fierce competition over getting into the right "feeder" pre-schools, etc) thus explaining the over-scheduling and control.  This phenomenon also explains parental intervention with teachers over school grades as one slip can put at risk years of costly investment.  At the same time the more intense the parental programming, the higher the bar that gets set and the more need to keep running to keep with the Jones'