Overparenting from the perspective of a University Dean
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have kids but one of my parents was a Dean of an exclusive little college where most of the students had highly successful parents - it was the 60's and 70's so mostly the Dads were the CEO's, etc and the Moms were typical trophy wives.
Many of the Moms were on mood elevators and over-parented to make up for absent Dads that put in 18 hour days and left the parenting to their wives. Many of the students at this college acted like little kids, expecting Mommy to baby them when they were sad or upset and Daddy to erase any boo boos they committed against rules or laws.
Point being, none of this is really new just maybe more wide spread as more of the middle class take on the 'normal mistakes' that only the wealthy had (medication), time, energy and money to do in the past.
As a classic underachiever who managed to get a good education including a master's degree from an "okay" university...I think so much of this is people ignoring the law of diminishing returns. We can push, push, push our kids to learn more at an earlier and earlier age but we've gotten to the point where we hit a wall against developmental limits.
We can push kids to get a 4.5 GPA (never had all the AP classes when I was a kid - I just enrolled in a real college after my sophomore year in H.S. to take REAL college courses!) - but is that inflated? What does a 4.5 GPA really mean? Going to an Ivy League school is much less about what you actually learn than "making connections". We can work our kids to death, but is it worth it so they can be $100k in debt with an advanced degree in history? Or even an MBA, which is now a dime a dozen?
I don't think kids lose much at all going to a state university, getting a 3.5 GPA there (no one has EVER asked for my GPA at a job interview - usually they never even ask your MAJOR!), and going for a decent job somewhere off of Wall Street. We have put certain colleges, professions and companies on undeserving pedestals and now we worship them and sacrifice ourselves and our kids...and for what? It's time for us all to get off the endless treadmill and teach our kids how to love learning and knowledge and how to live happy, satisfying lives.
As a classic underachiever who managed to get a good education including a master's degree from an "okay" university...I think so much of this is people ignoring the law of diminishing returns. We can push, push, push our kids to learn more at an earlier and earlier age but we've gotten to the point where we hit a wall against developmental limits.
We can push kids to get a 4.5 GPA (never had all the AP classes when I was a kid - I just enrolled in a real college after my sophomore year in H.S. to take REAL college courses!) - but is that inflated? What does a 4.5 GPA really mean? Going to an Ivy League school is much less about what you actually learn than "making connections". We can work our kids to death, but is it worth it so they can be $100k in debt with an advanced degree in history? Or even an MBA, which is now a dime a dozen?
I don't think kids lose much at all going to a state university, getting a 3.5 GPA there (no one has EVER asked for my GPA at a job interview - usually they never even ask your MAJOR!), and going for a decent job somewhere off of Wall Street. We have put certain colleges, professions and companies on undeserving pedestals and now we worship them and sacrifice ourselves and our kids...and for what? It's time for us all to get off the endless treadmill and teach our kids how to love learning and knowledge and how to live happy, satisfying lives.
Funny. Our goals for our children do not include Ivy League schools or off the chart GPA's or 6 figure salaries. We just want them to be able to afford college or tech school so they can get a job. I fail to see how that changes the fact that college is ultra expensive - even state colleges - and how that factors into those of us who encourage our children to do well in school. Also, encouraging and modeling an interest in doing well in school does not preclude a love of learning.
Funny. Our goals for our children do not include Ivy League schools or off the chart GPA's or 6 figure salaries. We just want them to be able to afford college or tech school so they can get a job. I fail to see how that changes the fact that college is ultra expensive - even state colleges - and how that factors into those of us who encourage our children to do well in school. Also, encouraging and modeling an interest in doing well in school does not preclude a love of learning.
What's your point - what's your beef with my comment? Sounds like we're in agreement...?
What's your point - what's your beef with my comment? Sounds like we're in agreement...?
I may be wrong but it seemed like you were saying it was wrong for parents to put their children on the "academic treadmill" in a bid to get into an Ivy League school, etc. I was pointing out that many parents don't hold such lofty dreams but still want their child to be able to go to college/tech school. Due to this desire many parents, including myself, encourage our children to perform well, participate in extracurriculars, etc so they may be eligible for scholarships and grant money.
****Disclosure to the CD community: We encourage good behavior and participation for a great many reasons. I zeroed in on scholarship money due to the nature of this thread. YMMV
Oh, the poor Xanax-addled mommies and the stress of maintaining a vapid and empty one-upmanship life, all for show for the other mommies and the 1% wannabee daddies!
I don't have kids but one of my parents was a Dean of an exclusive little college where most of the students had highly successful parents - it was the 60's and 70's so mostly the Dads were the CEO's, etc and the Moms were typical trophy wives.
Many of the Moms were on mood elevators and over-parented to make up for absent Dads that put in 18 hour days and left the parenting to their wives. Many of the students at this college acted like little kids, expecting Mommy to baby them when they were sad or upset and Daddy to erase any boo boos they committed against rules or laws.
Point being, none of this is really new just maybe more wide spread as more of the middle class take on the 'normal mistakes' that only the wealthy had (medication), time, energy and money to do in the past.
I agree with you there. I have been to college on two separate time frames and have yet to encounter the extremity of helicopter parenting.
I'm starting to believe that people from that part of California, which seems to be its own self-perpetuating source of hothouse flowers, should no longer be allowed to write parenting books.
I agree.
I just came from orientation with my son at Univ. of Florida. I didn't see any helicoptering parents. A few over controlling ones, but that seemed more like a personality thing than a social trend. What I did see was hundreds of students who were capable, self-directed, independent people.
I also saw wistful parents, like me, who were being confronted with the realization that we had done our jobs well and our kids don't really need us. They love us, and they may still think they need us, but every one of them could make it on their own from this point forward. There is a big difference between missing them and wanting to run interference for them. All I saw, for the most part, were people who were going to miss their kids.
And, without exception, every current student I encountered on that campus, working in different capacities, exuded confidence, leadership and the capabilities of an adult. Even current sophomores and juniors seemed well beyond their years mentally and emotionally. Their experiences at the school are adding to a strong foundation set by competent parents.
Perhaps the author of the book, educated at Harvard and Stanford and having worked at Stanford for so long, needs to get out more and meet more students and parents from a wider area and more varied backgrounds. She might realize Stanford is looking for, and/or producing the wrong kind of student.
I also kind of wonder if she hasn't done Stanford a bit of a disservice by stating that she is alarmed by the number of students they have there that can't manage themselves. Before you say "we," you have to make sure it's not just you.
The author is an idiot. She isn't fit to be the dean of a paper sack, much less a respectable academic institution. I could barely get through her incoherent "summary" of her so-called book, which was really just a endless string of rhetorical questions.
Do those who overuse rhetorical questions when writing deserve a smack? Yes. Yes they do.
The author is an idiot. She isn't fit to be the dean of a paper sack, much less a respectable academic institution. I could barely get through her incoherent "summary" of her so-called book, which was really just a endless string of rhetorical questions.
Do those who overuse rhetorical questions when writing deserve a smack? Yes. Yes they do.
Ok this made me laugh out loud. Well done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok this made me laugh out loud. Well done.
