Behold the pussification of American youth. :weep:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/08/31/a_1979_first_grade_readiness_checklist_asks_if_your_child_can_tr.html#article_comment_box
QuoteIs your child ready for first grade? Earlier this month, Chicago Now blogger Christine Whitley reprinted a checklist from a 1979 child-rearing series designed to help a parent figure that one out. Ten out of 12 meant readiness. Can your child "draw and color and stay within the lines of the design being colored?" Of course. Can she count "eight to ten pennies correctly?" Heck, yeah, I say for parents of kindergarteners everywhere. "Does your child try to write or copy letters or numbers?" Isn't that what preschool is for?
"Can he travel alone in the neighborhood (four to eight blocks) to store, school, playground, or to a friend's home?"
It's amazing what a difference 30 years have made. Academically, that 1979 first grader (who also needed to be "six years, six months" old and "have two to five permanent or second teeth") would have been considered right on target to start preschool. In terms of life skills, she's heading for middle school, riding her two-wheeled bike and finding her own way home. It's not surprising that I came to this link via Lenore Skenazy's Free-Range Kids blog. What is surprising is just how shocking a jolt it is to realize how stark the difference is between then and now.
I'd probably be considered a free-range parent by today's standards; I've allowed a 7-year-old to walk to a friend's house unaccompanied and left a 9-year-old in charge of siblings. But the idea of a kindergartener walking "four to eight blocks" alone? Crossing streets? Turning corners? Even though I suspect I did it myself, I can't get my head around it. I have two kindergarteners this year (and one will be 6 in just a few weeks), and I check on them if I let them walk solo to the bookstore's bathroom. Yesterday, I watched one of them get lost in the grocery store, trying to go two aisles over to the freezer section, where she'd been not 30 seconds before. Two to four blocks?
But there it is, in the middle of the list, as though the ability to find your way around your world at 6 years old was quite ordinary. The country isn't different (Skenazy points out that crime rates are actually lower overall than they were in 1979). We're different, and not just as parents. A commenter to the post points out that her children's school doesn't allow students to walk home alone (even with an older sibling) until fifth grade. And it's a difference most parents are aware of already. But to see it laid out so clearly is to remember that it wasn't just my own mother who expected more from me than I expect from my own kids, but all the mothers. I'm not suggesting we loose our kindergarteners on our neighborhoods, and I don't plan to send mine romping any further than the yard. But I will try to broaden my ideas of what else they're capable of—besides math and reading—this year.
More like you perverts who were kids in the late 70's grew up to be gross perverts and pedophiles. :P
Bookstore bathrooms? Gross.
I wish.
I suggested that my 3 nieces & nephews play alone in the yard the other day. You'd think I was crazy.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 07, 2011, 06:30:55 PM
You'd think I was crazy.
We've thought that for about 8 years or so.
Are the terms "helicopter parent" and "curling parent" in general use btw?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 07, 2011, 06:30:55 PM
I wish.
I suggested that my 3 nieces & nephews play alone in the yard the other day. You'd think I was crazy.
:blink:
Yep, in some ways a strange world we live in.
And it's over here as well, I know a 13-14 year old whose met by a parent at the bus stop, 300 yards from home and the kid is actually taller and bigger than the parent !
Quote from: mongers on September 07, 2011, 06:38:04 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 07, 2011, 06:30:55 PM
I wish.
I suggested that my 3 nieces & nephews play alone in the yard the other day. You'd think I was crazy.
:blink:
Yep, in some ways a strange world we live in.
And it's over here a well, I know a 13-14 year old whose met by a parent at the bus stop, 300 yards from home and the kid is actually taller and bigger than the parent !
Taller and stronger, maybe, but he's also emotionally crippled by insane parenting. He needs that escort.
In my day, we didn't have nor need any school buses! ;)
I was not a child in 1979.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2011, 07:04:32 PM
I was not a child in 1979.
I was, and we stood astride the world like a Colossus.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 07, 2011, 07:20:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2011, 07:04:32 PM
I was not a child in 1979.
I was, and we stood astride the world like a Colossus.
I was a child in the later half of '81. It took me a while before I could do much striding though. I didn't learn to walk for a long time. My mother thought there was something wrong with me. I forgot how this story ends.
I was 9 in 1979. I would take off my my bike and my friends and be gone all day with no way to get in touch with anyone or any way for them to find me.
I get nervous when my high school aged daughters are home 10 minutes late and they both carry cell phones. :blush:
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
I was 9 in 1979. I would take off my my bike and my friends and be gone all day with no way to get in touch with anyone or any way for them to find me.
I get nervous when my high school aged daughters are home 10 minutes late and they both carry cell phones. :blush:
Where does this fear come from ?
I gave my daughter a puppy recently. When she is 12 years old she will be required to strangle that puppy to death to show her strength. If she cannot, then she will be put to death.
Quote from: mongers on September 07, 2011, 08:10:31 PM
Where does this fear come from ?
The terror of knowing what this world is about?
I blame it all on the i-thingys and blueberrys. :mad:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 07, 2011, 08:15:08 PM
I gave my daughter a puppy recently. When she is 12 years old she will be required to strangle that puppy to death to show her strength. If she cannot, then she will be put to death.
Can you do that legally?
Quote from: Habsburg on September 07, 2011, 08:24:24 PM
I blame it all on the i-thingys and blueberrys. :mad:
Don't mock blueberries, they can be quite dangerous. :(
Quote from: mongers on September 07, 2011, 08:10:31 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
I was 9 in 1979. I would take off my my bike and my friends and be gone all day with no way to get in touch with anyone or any way for them to find me.
I get nervous when my high school aged daughters are home 10 minutes late and they both carry cell phones. :blush:
Where does this fear come from ?
news channels.
I remember the rules in 1979, when I was 13.
1) Don't take candy from a hippie.
2) If the earthquake hits, your desk will protect you.
3) Bomb Iran.
I think that is about all.
Quote from: The Brain on September 07, 2011, 06:37:28 PM
Are the terms "helicopter parent" and "curling parent" in general use btw?
I havent heard of a curling parent (insert obvious BB joke here) but helicopter parent will be entering the dictionary soon.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 07, 2011, 08:15:08 PM
I gave my daughter a puppy recently. When she is 12 years old she will be required to strangle that puppy to death to show her strength. If she cannot, then she will be put to death.
Why hello there GRRM :lol:
Quote from: PDH on September 07, 2011, 08:35:50 PM
I remember the rules in 1979, when I was 13.
1) Don't take candy from a hippie.
2) If the earthquake hits, your desk will protect you.
3) Bomb Iran.
I think that is about all.
You are forgetting the most important one. Never ever be home late for supper. Everything else is fine.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2011, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: PDH on September 07, 2011, 08:35:50 PM
I remember the rules in 1979, when I was 13.
1) Don't take candy from a hippie.
2) If the earthquake hits, your desk will protect you.
3) Bomb Iran.
I think that is about all.
You are forgetting the most important one. Never ever be home late for supper. Everything else is fine.
There was only one rule in 1979 or at least the theme for the year we left school:
Quote
We don't need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
I was 9 in 1979. I would take off my my bike and my friends and be gone all day with no way to get in touch with anyone or any way for them to find me.
Me too; 9 in 1979. Get on the bikes at 9 am, pack the backpacks with sammiches and Jugs, go exploring, and used tthe sun as a clock. Home by dark.
Life was good.
QuoteI get nervous when my high school aged daughters are home 10 minutes late and they both carry cell phones. :blush:
:lol: One of the reasons I skipped that phase.
QuoteShakedown 1979, cool kids never have the time
On a live wire right up off the street
You and I should meet
Junebug skipping like a stone
With the headlights pointed at the dawn
We were sure we'd never see an end to it all
And I don't even care to shake these zipper blues
And we don't know
Just where our bones will rest
To dust I guess
Forgotten and absorbed into the earth below
Double cross the vacant and the bored
They're not sure just what we have in store
Morphine city slipping dues down to see
That we don't even care as restless as we are
We feel the pull in the land of a thousand guilts
And poured cement, lamented and assured
To the lights and towns below
Faster than the speed of sound
Faster than we thought we'd go, beneath the sound of hope
Justine never knew the rules,
Hung down with the freaks and the ghouls
No apologies ever need be made, I know you better than you fake it
To see that we don't even care to shake these zipper blues
And we don't know just where our bones will rest
To dust I guess
Forgotten and absorbed into the earth below
The street heats the urgency of now
As you see there's no one around
Even with the lyrics in front of me, this song doesn't make a whole lot of sense. :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2011, 09:05:30 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
I was 9 in 1979. I would take off my my bike and my friends and be gone all day with no way to get in touch with anyone or any way for them to find me.
Me too; 9 in 1979. Get on the bikes at 9 am, pack the backpacks with sammiches and Jugs, go exploring, and used tthe sun as a clock. Home by dark.
Life was good.
QuoteI get nervous when my high school aged daughters are home 10 minutes late and they both carry cell phones. :blush:
:lol: One of the reasons I skipped that phase.
Ironically I still do this occasionally. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on September 07, 2011, 09:08:56 PM
Ironically I still do this occasionally. :cool:
I have much more important shit to do. I'm an adult now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2011, 09:16:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 07, 2011, 09:08:56 PM
Ironically I still do this occasionally. :cool:
I have much more important shit to do. I'm an adult now.
You have weekends, no ?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 07, 2011, 08:48:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 07, 2011, 06:37:28 PM
Are the terms "helicopter parent" and "curling parent" in general use btw?
I havent heard of a curling parent (insert obvious BB joke here) but helicopter parent will be entering the dictionary soon.
I fully intend to be a curling parent. I can't wait - all those saturday afternoons down at the curling club... :)
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
I was 9 in 1979. I would take off my my bike and my friends and be gone all day with no way to get in touch with anyone or any way for them to find me.
Same. I told my kids this once and they said, "Well, how did you know when to come home?" Duh! When the street lights came on!
Quote
I get nervous when my high school aged daughters are home 10 minutes late and they both carry cell phones. :blush:
I parent like my parents did, and I was shunned for it in Suburban Hell, Chicago. My boys were walking home from school alone by the end of first grade, and they had to walk *gasp* right next to a pond! At one point, the principal pulled me aside to ask me if I thought it was wise to let them do so, especially since I was home and could come and get them. Nevermind that I was home with a disabled daughter at the time, helping her with her PT/OT/ST when the boys were getting out of school. Regardless, they never had a problem coming home, though there were older kids who still got lost when they dared wander out alone. :wacko:
Has parenting really changed that much? I was allowed to ride my bike to school and like CdM ride around in the summer and explore. Nobody thought much of it. My neighborhood had a lot of old industrial crap around so was all kinds of neat stuff to do. I didn't have many friends though. Not that many kids around.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2011, 09:35:45 PM
Has parenting really changed that much? I was allowed to ride my bike to school and like CdM ride around in the summer and explore. Nobody thought much of it. My neighborhood had a lot of old industrial crap around so was all kinds of neat stuff to do. I didn't have many friends though. Not that many kids around.
Yes, yes it has. People now believe that "idle hands bring trouble", so they schedule and overschedule their kids to keep them "busy" so they don't get into trouble. Because of that, all play also has to be scheduled, through play dates and such. Even at 9 and 10 years old, the kids in Suburban Hell were calling each other up to make a play date, and god forbid anyone just show up on someone's doorstep. That was considered the height of rudeness.
Riding bikes is fine so long as it's done on the cul-de-sac with a helmet, elbow and knee pads on just in case someone happens to fall. (Wouldn't want our little angels to get scuffed knees now, would we?) Skateboards are okay, too, so long as they're the kind with the handle and they're only used on a flat surface. And children are absolutely not allowed to go to the pool by themselves! They must be at LEAST 14 before that's okay, and even then, it's probably better if Mom or Dad are around.. just in case.
I was so unbelievably happy when I finally moved out of that area. :lol:
I guess I'll take your word for it. Seems odd. I do remember a few kids had parents like that, but most didn't. I guess things like exploring storm sewer tunnels, riding your bike to the Missouri river, playing on the railroad tracks doesn't fly anymore, or hitting golf balls off a cliff just doesn't fly anymore.
Quote from: DGuller on September 07, 2011, 08:33:02 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 07, 2011, 08:15:08 PM
I gave my daughter a puppy recently. When she is 12 years old she will be required to strangle that puppy to death to show her strength. If she cannot, then she will be put to death.
Can you do that legally?
Why would you not be able to give a puppy to your daughter legally? What kind of crazy, anti-pedo moral panic is that???
Quote from: PDH on September 07, 2011, 08:35:50 PM
I remember the rules in 1979, when I was 13.
1) Don't take candy from a hippie.
2) If the earthquake hits, your desk will protect you.
3) Bomb Iran.
I think that is about all.
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?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 07, 2011, 09:05:30 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
I was 9 in 1979. I would take off my my bike and my friends and be gone all day with no way to get in touch with anyone or any way for them to find me.
Me too; 9 in 1979. Get on the bikes at 9 am, pack the backpacks with sammiches and Jugs, go exploring, and used tthe sun as a clock. Home by dark.
Life was good.
QuoteI get nervous when my high school aged daughters are home 10 minutes late and they both carry cell phones. :blush:
:lol: One of the reasons I skipped that phase.
I remember we were riding into the forest on our bikes and digging up old WW2 bomb shells and transporting them back home - until my father found out and told us these are actually unexploded bombs and told us to stop. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on September 07, 2011, 09:35:45 PM
Has parenting really changed that much?
I think it's two things. One is the insane concern for safety. The other is an Asian style sense of competitiveness, which means kids are sent to 5 different language classes and all kind of extra curricular activities at an early age.
Quote from: mongers on September 07, 2011, 08:10:31 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
I was 9 in 1979. I would take off my my bike and my friends and be gone all day with no way to get in touch with anyone or any way for them to find me.
I get nervous when my high school aged daughters are home 10 minutes late and they both carry cell phones. :blush:
Where does this fear come from ?
It is parental self-indulgence. Parents have a very strong protective instinct, in recent years this has been given free rein and the counter-balancing need to encourage children to develop independence neglected.
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 01:22:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 08, 2011, 01:32:18 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 07, 2011, 08:10:31 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
I was 9 in 1979. I would take off my my bike and my friends and be gone all day with no way to get in touch with anyone or any way for them to find me.
I get nervous when my high school aged daughters are home 10 minutes late and they both carry cell phones. :blush:
Where does this fear come from ?
It is parental self-indulgence. Parents have a very strong protective instinct, in recent years this has been given free rein and the counter-balancing need to encourage children to develop independence neglected.
What a broad stroke, sweeping bunch of horse shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 01:41:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 01:22:15 AM
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.
Look at the pretty flash. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 01:41:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 01:22:15 AM
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.
Didn't the Soviets have an extensive Civil Defense effort that built bunkers, practiced evacuations and such?
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/mar-apr/dorough.html
Or was that another hyped ability of theirs that they didn't actually have?
Quote from: 11B4V on September 08, 2011, 01:49:36 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 08, 2011, 01:32:18 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 07, 2011, 08:10:31 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
I was 9 in 1979. I would take off my my bike and my friends and be gone all day with no way to get in touch with anyone or any way for them to find me.
I get nervous when my high school aged daughters are home 10 minutes late and they both carry cell phones. :blush:
Where does this fear come from ?
It is parental self-indulgence. Parents have a very strong protective instinct, in recent years this has been given free rein and the counter-balancing need to encourage children to develop independence neglected.
What a broad stroke, sweeping bunch of horse shit.
Much like your reply then :lol:
At the age of seven I was in charge of our house's air raid drills during the first Gulf War. :smarty:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 01:41:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 01:22:15 AM
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.
Raz, I visited Hiroshima some years ago, they have an excellent museum there and I was fascinated by a display about people who survived quite close to the blast and others who died at a much greater distance. Ducking under a desk worked surprisingly well, there was a school class where some of them looked and the others got under their desks.........the difference in death rate was stark. A few hundred yards from the blast there was a gas storage tank.......the people who lived in its shadow survived, an entire suburb was protected by a low ridge only about 50 feet high.......and so on.......
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 08, 2011, 02:15:34 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on September 08, 2011, 01:49:36 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 08, 2011, 01:32:18 AM
Quote from: mongers on September 07, 2011, 08:10:31 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
I was 9 in 1979. I would take off my my bike and my friends and be gone all day with no way to get in touch with anyone or any way for them to find me.
I get nervous when my high school aged daughters are home 10 minutes late and they both carry cell phones. :blush:
Where does this fear come from ?
It is parental self-indulgence. Parents have a very strong protective instinct, in recent years this has been given free rein and the counter-balancing need to encourage children to develop independence neglected.
What a broad stroke, sweeping bunch of horse shit.
Much like your reply then :lol:
Quite
In the olden days people hade more kids so watching them all was simply impossible.
In 1979 the average IQ of the parent was 26. In 2011 it was 19. 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-19.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 08, 2011, 02:07:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 01:41:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 01:22:15 AM
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.
Didn't the Soviets have an extensive Civil Defense effort that built bunkers, practiced evacuations and such?
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/mar-apr/dorough.html
Or was that another hyped ability of theirs that they didn't actually have?
Here's an other article on the subject.
:yeahright: :yeahright: :yeahright:
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1979/mar-apr/wolfe.html
QuoteThe potential lifesaving effectiveness of the Soviet CD program is not a matter of unanimous agreement. However, several studies estimate casualty rates as low as two to three percent of the Soviet population in the event of nuclear war.25
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2011, 03:16:02 AM
In 1979 the average IQ of the parent was 26. In 2011 it was 19. 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-19.
:lol:Nobody's sooo not gonna get that.
Been a while since that song was out, only the board seniors will get it :D
Mind you, the average age of this place must be going up steadily :hmm:
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 (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 (http://scyfilove.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Nuclear-War-Survival-Guide-British-Government.pdf)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 08, 2011, 02:07:39 AM
Didn't the Soviets have an extensive Civil Defense effort that built bunkers, practiced evacuations and such?
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1977/mar-apr/dorough.html
Or was that another hyped ability of theirs that they didn't actually have?
Or did they just not share with their "allies"? I wouldn't be surprised.
QuoteIn the olden days people hade more kids so watching them all was simply impossible.
I suspect that you meant that in jest, but there is some truth to it.
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2011, 02:44:54 AM
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. :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on September 08, 2011, 07:21:15 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2011, 02:44:54 AM
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. :hmm:
It would have been better if he sold the olde fashioned spelling more. As it stands that could just be a typo. :hmm:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 07, 2011, 08:15:08 PM
I gave my daughter a puppy recently. When she is 12 years old she will be required to strangle that puppy to death to show her strength. If she cannot, then she will be put to death.
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on September 08, 2011, 07:21:15 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2011, 02:44:54 AM
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. :hmm:
I'd also factor in much smaller housing for families. Children were sent outside right after breakfast, seen for lunch & came home for Dinner.
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 09:36:35 AM
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 ?
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 09:36:35 AM
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
Quote
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
I don't think kids today are spoiled rotten; more that they are denied autonomy and then compensated with loads of consumerist crap.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 08, 2011, 10:00:34 AM
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?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 09:58:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 09:36:35 AM
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
Quote
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.
Quote from: Brazen on September 08, 2011, 06:33:22 AM
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 (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 (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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 10:02:31 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 08, 2011, 10:00:34 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 10:08:35 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 10:08:35 AM
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 :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 10:08:35 AM
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. :D 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 01:41:31 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 08, 2011, 01:22:15 AM
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). :lol:
The irony is that more people want to nuke Poland now than ever before.
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2011, 02:44:54 AM
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. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 09:58:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 09:36:35 AM
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
Quote
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.
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?
Quote from: merithyn on September 08, 2011, 07:21:15 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2011, 02:44:54 AM
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. :hmm:
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 08, 2011, 10:00:34 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 11:51:14 AM
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."
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 11:51:14 AM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2011, 11:35:07 AM
The irony is that more people want to nuke Poland now than ever before.
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on September 07, 2011, 09:31:30 PM
Same. I told my kids this once and they said, "Well, how did you know when to come home?"
Digital watches.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 08, 2011, 12:17:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 11:51:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 11:23:30 AM
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. :D 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.
Quote from: merithyn on September 08, 2011, 01:09:01 PM
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.
QuoteMy 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.
;)
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'
Every time I see a parent tell their kid they should through their garbage in the street even though a trashcan is a few steps away, or that they should run across the street, despite the red light for pedestrians, because the tram is about to leave (and they can't wait for 5 minutes, obviously) I want to punch said parents.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 08, 2011, 12:17:37 PMNo 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.
Playing hardball?
Students complain that you assign them work for the reading week because they'll be vacationing in Cancun - and they paid good money for that vacation! They do not ask the reason why you gave them a C, they simply want to assert that they need a B+.
The problem is not that they try to negotiate deadlines, it is that they try to negotiate
everything, from the amount of work, to the grades, to the number of exams, to the difficulty of the class. This is not asking universities to be responsive - it is asking professors to avoid provoking the least possible inconvenience to the students.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 08, 2011, 01:56:04 PM
Playing hardball?
Students complain that you assign them work for the reading week because they'll be vacationing in Cancun - and they paid good money for that vacation! They do not ask the reason why you gave them a C, they simply want to assert that they need a B+.
The problem is not that they try to negotiate deadlines, it is that they try to negotiate everything, from the amount of work, to the grades, to the number of exams, to the difficulty of the class. This is not asking universities to be responsive - it is asking professors to avoid provoking the least possible inconvenience to the students.
I don't think that students who earn a C should get a B+, or that students should get out of work because they are vacationing in Cancun, but is it so terrible that they ask for these things? Presumably they are getting accomodated in some cases (I doubt they have gone through life constantly rejected on these points, and are still asking in university), which makes asking somewhat rational.
My guess would be that to the extent things have changed, it is because before students put more value on the relationship with the professor, rather than the current emphasis on grades.
Well, that, coupled with a greater emphasis being put on students' reviews of professors, may end up favoring the "easy" professors and punish the demanding ones.
I was reviewing a file for court tomorrow:
Police respond to a complaint of a possible abandoned child - there was a seven year old girl walking down the streets without any parents! :o
The girl pointed out her home, where police found dad (who wasn't supposed to have any contact with mom) thus leading to the file in my office.
From April (posted in my thread in the back)
QuoteRan into my first helicopter parent today. Had office hours today, and one of my students wanted to discuss her grade on the test. A high 'B' (86). In walked her and her sorta(maybe) MILF-y mom. They wanted me to bump her test grade up above 90. The possibility of her precious child not getting an 'A' could affect her GPA and have an effect when she transfers to big person university in 2 years.
SIGH. IT WAS AN OPEN BOOK TEST.
Anyways, I refused. The said they would go over my head to the Business Dean. I said go ahead. GOOD DAY MA'AM.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 08, 2011, 01:21:01 PM
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'
I suspect at some point this has to end. Humans have finite capabilities.
If you just sit quietly in the corner you won't get what you want in life. Ask and sometimes you will actually receive, no matter how ridiculous.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 08, 2011, 02:44:59 PM
From April (posted in my thread in the back)
QuoteRan into my first helicopter parent today. Had office hours today, and one of my students wanted to discuss her grade on the test. A high 'B' (86). In walked her and her sorta(maybe) MILF-y mom. They wanted me to bump her test grade up above 90. The possibility of her precious child not getting an 'A' could affect her GPA and have an effect when she transfers to big person university in 2 years.
SIGH. IT WAS AN OPEN BOOK TEST.
Anyways, I refused. The said they would go over my head to the Business Dean. I said go ahead. GOOD DAY MA'AM.
All this, and no oral sex out of the MILF-y mom? :(
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 02:50:26 PM
I suspect at some point this has to end. Humans have finite capabilities.
It has nothing to do with capabilities and everything to do with resume padding. There is no secret that grade inflation is occuring so that secondary schools can get their students into university. For that reason high school grades have become somewhat irrelevant since everyone and their dog seems to be capable of an A average these days. As Minsky suggests that means more competition related to non academic achievements. Which creates a kind of inflation of its own with lots activities in which the child barely participates.
The child's capabilities are not being expanded - just the resume.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 08, 2011, 10:00:34 AM
loads of consumerist crap.
That's a pretty basic definition of how to spoil a kid rotten.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 03:42:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 02:50:26 PM
I suspect at some point this has to end. Humans have finite capabilities.
It has nothing to do with capabilities and everything to do with resume padding. There is no secret that grade inflation is occuring so that secondary schools can get their students into university. For that reason high school grades have become somewhat irrelevant since everyone and their dog seems to be capable of an A average these days. As Minsky suggests that means more competition related to non academic achievements. Which creates a kind of inflation of its own with lots activities in which the child barely participates.
The child's capabilities are not being expanded - just the resume.
Fair enough. But at some point decision-makers have to realize that 90-100% of everything on a resume is crap, too, right?
Interestingly, I was applying to a fedgov job today, that asked me about my high school grades. A surprising number of questions were stuff like "did you ever make the honor roll," and only provided "yes" or "no" bubbles, instead of the true responses, which would be either "I have no fucking idea, because it was over ten years ago" or "it doesn't matter in the slightest, because I spent more time in post-high school education than I did in high school, culminating in a bachelor's and a professional degree."
Fwiw, it was an entirely new one on me, and I've filled out like fifty fedgov questionnaires, most of which ask very reasonable questions and aren't eighty questions long. GS-7, too, not a complete retard position, so it was extra weird.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 11:23:30 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 10:08:35 AM
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. :D This was a charge commonly levelled at boomers, particularly by their elders ...
You cannot be ignorant of this perception.
And their descendants. When everyone in contact with them both older and younger agree, maybe it's true.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 03:42:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 02:50:26 PM
I suspect at some point this has to end. Humans have finite capabilities.
It has nothing to do with capabilities and everything to do with resume padding. There is no secret that grade inflation is occuring so that secondary schools can get their students into university. For that reason high school grades have become somewhat irrelevant since everyone and their dog seems to be capable of an A average these days. As Minsky suggests that means more competition related to non academic achievements. Which creates a kind of inflation of its own with lots activities in which the child barely participates.
The child's capabilities are not being expanded - just the resume.
Part of that is that the kids are graded on the amount of busywork they do and not the amount of information they learned or skills they developed. But waaaa, little Johnny's not good at taking tests...
While I am with Ed that all the negotiating is bullshit, the conflict is that the kids have too much crapwork piled on them. No 4th grader should have four hours of homework a night. That's a ten-hour workday, and you can't even make an adult do that without paying them overtime. So I do have a bit of sympathy for the poor bastards.
until i turned 7ish in '95 and was spirited away to bahrain, my childhood was pretty normal. i strolled the neighborhoods playing with friends and visited the park unsupervised a number of times. either my parents weren't typical, or this change in parenting has been more recent than the early-mid nineties
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 05:19:26 PM
Fair enough. But at some point decision-makers have to realize that 90-100% of everything on a resume is crap, too, right?
They do. There is all kinds of discussion going on about what to do about it. Maybe as the demographic shift continues there will be less competition to get into schools (more spaces for less kids) and the problem will take care of itself.
To be fair resume padding has been going on for a long time; I've worked for two childrens charities, whose activities and awards invariable end up on CV/resumes.
Not to get into the specifics of the jobs and what each award entails, take for instance Phil the Greeks outfit, whom I may or may not have worked for, for years if you've wanted to get into an Oxbridge college and have the relevant grads, having your DofE Gold award has been something that'll help tip you over the edge towards being offered a place in return for a fairly modest outlay of time, effort and money.
Which is why it's still as popular today, especially amongst the AB social classes.
Quote from: LaCroix on September 08, 2011, 05:36:56 PM
until i turned 7ish in '95 and was spirited away to bahrain, my childhood was pretty normal. i strolled the neighborhoods playing with friends and visited the park unsupervised a number of times. either my parents weren't typical, or this change in parenting has been more recent than the early-mid nineties
Not sure about the early-mid nineties - I was paying attention to other things then. I did notice it when I had my own kids in the late nineties.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2011, 05:37:24 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 05:19:26 PM
Fair enough. But at some point decision-makers have to realize that 90-100% of everything on a resume is crap, too, right?
They do. There is all kinds of discussion going on about what to do about it. Maybe as the demographic shift continues there will be less competition to get into schools (more spaces for less kids) and the problem will take care of itself.
What kind if shift would have to happen in society so that a degree is not required for the majority of good jobs anymore? Or crazy credentials of other types. I've got a long list of acronyms after my name in IT certs and they're mostly bullshit tests I took walking in cold. They didn't make me better at my job.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 03:17:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 08, 2011, 02:44:59 PM
From April (posted in my thread in the back)
QuoteRan into my first helicopter parent today. Had office hours today, and one of my students wanted to discuss her grade on the test. A high 'B' (86). In walked her and her sorta(maybe) MILF-y mom. They wanted me to bump her test grade up above 90. The possibility of her precious child not getting an 'A' could affect her GPA and have an effect when she transfers to big person university in 2 years.
SIGH. IT WAS AN OPEN BOOK TEST.
Anyways, I refused. The said they would go over my head to the Business Dean. I said go ahead. GOOD DAY MA'AM.
All this, and no oral sex out of the MILF-y mom? :(
I am a paragon of virtue.
Resume padding is a signal though: if two students have similar marks, and one spent his time padding a resume, and the second didn't, the latter is going to be a higher risk applicant. Sure that candidate may have spent his time on a worthy pursuit, but may have also spent his time vegging out in front of a video game. All you really know is the first cared enough about attending a good school to spend a bunch of time building a resume, and the second didn't.
Quote from: Brazen on September 08, 2011, 06:33:22 AM
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 (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 (http://scyfilove.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Nuclear-War-Survival-Guide-British-Government.pdf)
Cool find Brazen. :)
So, no one knows anything about Soviet Civil Defense? Ide?
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 08, 2011, 05:46:01 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 03:17:10 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 08, 2011, 02:44:59 PM
From April (posted in my thread in the back)
QuoteRan into my first helicopter parent today. Had office hours today, and one of my students wanted to discuss her grade on the test. A high 'B' (86). In walked her and her sorta(maybe) MILF-y mom. They wanted me to bump her test grade up above 90. The possibility of her precious child not getting an 'A' could affect her GPA and have an effect when she transfers to big person university in 2 years.
SIGH. IT WAS AN OPEN BOOK TEST.
Anyways, I refused. The said they would go over my head to the Business Dean. I said go ahead. GOOD DAY MA'AM.
All this, and no oral sex out of the MILF-y mom? :(
I am a paragon of virtue.
This is why I can't teach. I just can't.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 08, 2011, 06:44:22 PM
Resume padding is a signal though: if two students have similar marks, and one spent his time padding a resume, and the second didn't, the latter is going to be a higher risk applicant. Sure that candidate may have spent his time on a worthy pursuit, but may have also spent his time vegging out in front of a video game. All you really know is the first cared enough about attending a good school to spend a bunch of time building a resume, and the second didn't.
I dunno. Really, what does a willingness to do charitable work, or play football, have to do with any job, that isn't at a charity, or involve football? Relevant experience I can give a pass (internships, and the like), but how do the moon-person activities Mongers was referring to make you a better candidate for, I dunno, being a doctor, than playing Halo with your pals, or preferring solitary hobbies, like drawing?
And yeah, I'm still pissed that two out of three of my attempts to pad my resume failed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 08, 2011, 07:46:41 PM
Cool find Brazen. :)
So, no one knows anything about Soviet Civil Defense? Ide?
[/quote]
If anyone would, it would be Dguller. I think it mostly consisted of hiding in the subway.
I don't know anything about Soviet civil defense, nope. I could probably say that the safest Soviet/Russian city to be in, in the event of a nuclear war involving the USSR/Russia, would be Moscow, since I believe it was on the withhold list due to the political leadership capable of ending a nuclear war being there. Also, it was the only site in the country permitted ABM defense by the treaty. They used (use?) the ABM-1 Galosh, which was nuclear itself, so it may actually have been effective.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 09:03:37 PM
I don't know anything about Soviet civil defense, nope. I could probably say that the safest Soviet/Russian city to be in, in the event of a nuclear war involving the USSR/Russia, would be Moscow, since I believe it was on the withhold list due to the political leadership capable of ending a nuclear war being there. Also, it was the only site in the country permitted ABM defense by the treaty. They used (use?) the ABM-1 Galosh, which was nuclear itself, so it may actually have been effective.
I thought that they were allowed 2 ABM sites?
Quote from: dps on September 08, 2011, 09:17:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 09:03:37 PM
I don't know anything about Soviet civil defense, nope. I could probably say that the safest Soviet/Russian city to be in, in the event of a nuclear war involving the USSR/Russia, would be Moscow, since I believe it was on the withhold list due to the political leadership capable of ending a nuclear war being there. Also, it was the only site in the country permitted ABM defense by the treaty. They used (use?) the ABM-1 Galosh, which was nuclear itself, so it may actually have been effective.
I thought that they were allowed 2 ABM sites?
By the original text of the treaty, but the 74 protocol limited it to only one for either side.
QuoteArticle I
1. Each Party shall be limited at any one time to a single area of the two provided in Article III of the Treaty for deployment of anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems or their components and accordingly shall not exercise its right to deploy an ABM system or its components in the second of the two ABM system deployment areas permitted by Article III of the Treaty, except as an exchange of one permitted area for the other in accordance with Article II of this Protocol.
2. Accordingly, except as permitted by Article II of this Protocol: the United States of America shall not deploy an ABM system or its components in the area centered on its capital, as permitted by Article III(a) of the Treaty, and the Soviet Union shall not deploy an ABM system or its components in the deployment area of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silo launchers as permitted by Article III(b) of the Treaty.
Actually, the Russians may have expanded their ABMs by now--I mean, I doubt it, it's Russia--but afaik the ABM Treaty is presently void.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 09:21:59 PM
but afaik the ABM Treaty is presently void.
It is. For quite some time now.
Quote from: Malthus on September 08, 2011, 01:20:25 PM
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.
As in all things, moderation is key. Being involved in your child's education up to - and possibly through - 8th grade is being a good parent. After that, your job is to teach your children how to handle things on their own. At least, that's what I believe, and it seems to be working fine for my crew, just as it did for my parents.
Quote
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.
;)
No doubt. The question isn't whether there were spoiled kids. The question is in the sheer numbers of them. They were unusual enough when I was a kid that they were pointed out among our friends. My kids, on the other hand, are the ones being pointed out for having actual chores, having to cook dinner, and actually being allowed to go out and play without me tagging along. That, to me, is the tell.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 09:03:37 PM
I don't know anything about Soviet civil defense, nope. I could probably say that the safest Soviet/Russian city to be in, in the event of a nuclear war involving the USSR/Russia, would be Moscow, since I believe it was on the withhold list due to the political leadership capable of ending a nuclear war being there. Also, it was the only site in the country permitted ABM defense by the treaty. They used (use?) the ABM-1 Galosh, which was nuclear itself, so it may actually have been effective.
Ours was nuclear as well. I think the radioactivity of the weapons would destroy the electronics of the controlling devices. So it really wouldn't work that well. I imagine theirs had the same problem, though who knows? Maybe they used vacuum tubes or something. I don't know about the wisdom of putting Moscow on this list. In the event of a nuclear war they would be isolated, how would they know how much damage their country had sustained? How would they be able to order their own missiles to stand down?
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 09:03:37 PM
I don't know anything about Soviet civil defense, nope. I could probably say that the safest Soviet/Russian city to be in, in the event of a nuclear war involving the USSR/Russia, would be Moscow, since I believe it was on the withhold list due to the political leadership capable of ending a nuclear war being there. Also, it was the only site in the country permitted ABM defense by the treaty. They used (use?) the ABM-1 Galosh, which was nuclear itself, so it may actually have been effective.
According to the Ford-Carter era documents I posted earlier we believed their Civil Defense preparations were quite effective. I'm just wondering if that was true, or if like so many other estimates on the Soviets it was inflated. I can see it going either way. Concrete bunkers are after all a lot easier to build then sophisticated weaponry.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 10:20:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 09:03:37 PM
I don't know anything about Soviet civil defense, nope. I could probably say that the safest Soviet/Russian city to be in, in the event of a nuclear war involving the USSR/Russia, would be Moscow, since I believe it was on the withhold list due to the political leadership capable of ending a nuclear war being there. Also, it was the only site in the country permitted ABM defense by the treaty. They used (use?) the ABM-1 Galosh, which was nuclear itself, so it may actually have been effective.
Ours was nuclear as well. I think the radioactivity of the weapons would destroy the electronics of the controlling devices. So it really wouldn't work that well. I imagine theirs had the same problem, though who knows? Maybe they used vacuum tubes or something. I don't know about the wisdom of putting Moscow on this list. In the event of a nuclear war they would be isolated, how would they know how much damage their country had sustained? How would they be able to order their own missiles to stand down?
I would expect that the Soviets had something like the Post-Attack Command and Control System that we had. I don't believe they had constantly airborne systems, but I might be wrong about that.
Anyway, I don't see the percentage in decapitating the Soviet leadership myself--it's unlikely to be
more dangerous than a dead hand response--and I know some plans did indeed contemplate a withhold on Moscow.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2011, 12:57:58 AM
I would expect that the Soviets had something like the Post-Attack Command and Control System that we had. I don't believe they had constantly airborne systems, but I might be wrong about that.
Anyway, I don't see the percentage in decapitating the Soviet leadership myself--it's unlikely to be more dangerous than a dead hand response--and I know some plans did indeed contemplate a withhold on Moscow.
What was suppose to keep those planes flying in case of a nuclear attack? Wouldn't they be effected by EMPs and bursts of radiation that destroy electronics? It also assumes a fairly short nuclear exchange. It's possible that that a nuclear exchange might be a tit-for-tat affair where we destroy one city and they destroy one city then we destroy another city etc. It's possible that it could last for days or even weeks. In fact, with the silos this was somewhat anticipated.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2011, 02:06:30 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 09, 2011, 12:57:58 AM
I would expect that the Soviets had something like the Post-Attack Command and Control System that we had. I don't believe they had constantly airborne systems, but I might be wrong about that.
Anyway, I don't see the percentage in decapitating the Soviet leadership myself--it's unlikely to be more dangerous than a dead hand response--and I know some plans did indeed contemplate a withhold on Moscow.
What was suppose to keep those planes flying in case of a nuclear attack? Wouldn't they be effected by EMPs and bursts of radiation that destroy electronics? It also assumes a fairly short nuclear exchange. It's possible that that a nuclear exchange might be a tit-for-tat affair where we destroy one city and they destroy one city then we destroy another city etc. It's possible that it could last for days or even weeks. In fact, with the silos this was somewhat anticipated.
Faraday cages?
Don't those have limits? I don't think they protect against bursts of radiation.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 07:54:39 PM
I dunno. Really, what does a willingness to do charitable work, or play football, have to do with any job, that isn't at a charity, or involve football? Relevant experience I can give a pass (internships, and the like), but how do the moon-person activities Mongers was referring to make you a better candidate for, I dunno, being a doctor, than playing Halo with your pals, or preferring solitary hobbies, like drawing?
And yeah, I'm still pissed that two out of three of my attempts to pad my resume failed.
Because the world is collaborative. Part of what makes a good doctor is networking to share best practices, participating (and ideally leading) conferences, etc. People who show a willingness to work in structured groups in school are probably more likely to do so as professionals.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 08:51:27 PM
If anyone would, it would be Dguller. I think it mostly consisted of hiding in the subway.
I don't know anything about what Soviet civilians were supposed to do in the event of an imminent nuclear strike. If there was a plan, them I'm sure it would've been top secret anyway.
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2011, 03:16:02 AM
In 1979 the average IQ of the parent was 26. In 2011 it was 19. 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-19.
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on September 08, 2011, 09:49:38 PM
As in all things, moderation is key. Being involved in your child's education up to - and possibly through - 8th grade is being a good parent. After that, your job is to teach your children how to handle things on their own. At least, that's what I believe, and it seems to be working fine for my crew, just as it did for my parents.
Clearly, teaching kids to be self-reliant is a good thing. What I'm saying is that of the two extremes - total neglect on the one hand and helicopter parenting on the other - if one has the resources, total neglect is the worse.
Sure, kids will learn to be self-reliant if their parents interfere not a jot in their education - but at a low level.
Quote
No doubt. The question isn't whether there were spoiled kids. The question is in the sheer numbers of them. They were unusual enough when I was a kid that they were pointed out among our friends. My kids, on the other hand, are the ones being pointed out for having actual chores, having to cook dinner, and actually being allowed to go out and play without me tagging along. That, to me, is the tell.
The amazing thing is that, not only are there more bratty kids in each generation than the one before, but this has
always been true throughout recorded history! Clearly, there must have been in the past some golden age when all kids were perfectly well behaved. :lol:
Quote"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for their elders, and love chatter in
places of exercise. They no longer rise when elders enter the room.
They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their
food and tyrannize their teachers."
-attributed to Socrates (?)
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2011, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 08:51:27 PM
If anyone would, it would be Dguller. I think it mostly consisted of hiding in the subway.
I don't know anything about what Soviet civilians were supposed to do in the event of an imminent nuclear strike. If there was a plan, them I'm sure it would've been top secret anyway.
How old where you when you left?
If you were over 12 then I'd say that means that we vastly inflated their capability. The analysts in those articles I posted believed that the Soviets built enough bunkers and practiced evacuations enough that most of the population would survive. I'd expect that you would have noticed that if true.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 09, 2011, 07:53:05 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 08, 2011, 07:54:39 PM
I dunno. Really, what does a willingness to do charitable work, or play football, have to do with any job, that isn't at a charity, or involve football? Relevant experience I can give a pass (internships, and the like), but how do the moon-person activities Mongers was referring to make you a better candidate for, I dunno, being a doctor, than playing Halo with your pals, or preferring solitary hobbies, like drawing?
And yeah, I'm still pissed that two out of three of my attempts to pad my resume failed.
Because the world is collaborative. Part of what makes a good doctor is networking to share best practices, participating (and ideally leading) conferences, etc. People who show a willingness to work in structured groups in school are probably more likely to do so as professionals.
A lot of other activities are collaborative. You specifically mentioned video-games as the wrong thing to spend your time in, yet - to put forward just two examples - downing a new boss on WoW or progressing on clan competitions on Counterstrike require intense coordination with your teammates, among many other useful skills*.
* Such as spatial awareness (interpreting X-Ray or MRI tests); hand-eye coordination (performing procedures); fast, out of the box thinking (diagnosing); multitasking ...
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 09, 2011, 09:22:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2011, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 08:51:27 PM
If anyone would, it would be Dguller. I think it mostly consisted of hiding in the subway.
I don't know anything about what Soviet civilians were supposed to do in the event of an imminent nuclear strike. If there was a plan, them I'm sure it would've been top secret anyway.
How old where you when you left?
If you were over 12 then I'd say that means that we vastly inflated their capability. The analysts in those articles I posted believed that the Soviets built enough bunkers and practiced evacuations enough that most of the population would survive. I'd expect that you would have noticed that if true.
I was exactly 12 when I left in 1994.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 09, 2011, 09:22:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 09, 2011, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 08, 2011, 08:51:27 PM
If anyone would, it would be Dguller. I think it mostly consisted of hiding in the subway.
I don't know anything about what Soviet civilians were supposed to do in the event of an imminent nuclear strike. If there was a plan, them I'm sure it would've been top secret anyway.
How old where you when you left?
If you were over 12 then I'd say that means that we vastly inflated their capability. The analysts in those articles I posted believed that the Soviets built enough bunkers and practiced evacuations enough that most of the population would survive. I'd expect that you would have noticed that if true.
I don't know about Soviets, but in Poland there were no such activities, and I'm pretty sure there weren't any bunkers for civilians either, maybe a few for high lvl commies, but otherwise nothing. There would be a nuclear desert in case of any such attack.
Yeah, the soviet satellite states each had their own independent policies when it came to shit like that.
In fact, beyond having troops stationed in Poland and making sure the first secretary got the Moscow's blessing, Russians rarely interfered - people from the West have a wrong idea about the level of influence Soviets had.
Poland ball cannot get into shelter.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2011, 04:57:59 PM
Poland ball cannot get into shelter.
We preferred to spend the money on ham and beer. Turns out we were right. :P
Hell, we didn't spend much on sheleters either.
Gov't guy 1:Hey, the Library has a basement.
Gov't guy 2: Put a fallout shelter sign up and dump a couple boxes of those emergency crackers and TP in there.
Gov't guy 3: WE'RE PROTECTING THE HOMELAND!
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 09, 2011, 05:01:55 PM
Hell, we didn't spend much on sheleters either.
Gov't guy 1:Hey, the Library has a basement.
Gov't guy 2: Put a fallout shelter sign up and dump a couple boxes of those emergency crackers and TP in there.
Gov't guy 3: WE'RE PROTECTING THE HOMELAND!
:lol:
Yeah, Rumsfeld and his minions were basically raving about a mineshaft gap.
Quote from: Martinus on September 09, 2011, 04:57:14 PM
Yeah, the soviet satellite states each had their own independent policies when it came to shit like that.
In fact, beyond having troops stationed in Poland and making sure the first secretary got the Moscow's blessing, Russians rarely interfered - people from the West have a wrong idea about the level of influence Soviets had.
The things in Czechoslovakia and Hungary must have given us the wrong impression.
Quote from: KRonn on September 07, 2011, 06:45:04 PM
In my day, we didn't have nor need any school buses! ;)
I was 7, and my walk to school was 20 minutes of harsh Russian winter... :showoff: alone...
A pedo approached me once ("want to come to by birthday, boy?") but I ran away.
When I was 7 or 8 and on my way home from school one day, a creepy guy told me that my Mom had called him that she had to run errands and that I was supposed to have lunch at his place. We had just moved to a new apartment and our phone line hadn't been connected yet, so I told him my mom couldn't have called him. He just walked away.
I don't think I was ever approached like that. I must not have been pretty enough.