|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Helicopter parents are harming their kids. Stop it!
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
When I attended the provincial university in the 1960s, the vast majority of students came from the city in which it was located and lived at home. Residences were for foreign students, for students from northern Manitoba and from other parts of Canada. It would not have occurred to most of us to look to live away from home, certainly in the first couple of years.
And your know, sports happened, and socializing occurred. (Of course, it was illegal for undergrads to drink in those days.) Because, by and large, people didn't come in for classes and then go home -- they stayed around in libraries, cafeterias, gyms and common rooms.
John
Much the same here when I was at Uni, but those living in a college included those from country areas of the State as well. Almost no-one from metropolitan Sydney lived in college then - quite a change to now, when several of those at school with Dlet stayed in college rather than take the the oh-so-tiring train trip.
Not sure what Albertus means abut the council paying for full time attendance. I did a combined course in Arts and Law. For the first 3 years (2 of Arts, i of Law), I was a full-time student, but had a part-time job with one of the large Sydney department stores. Plenty of time for contacts beyond lectures, and of course once I turned 18 I could go to licensed premises. For my last 3 years, my Law course was counted as full-time, but I also worked in what was counted as full-time articles. Lectures 8 to 10, work to 1, tutorial or a lecture until 2, back to work until 4 and then another couple of hours lectures. After then, perhaps a quick bite to eat and off to the library - perhaps work if something urgent was on. And the Law School was then not on the university campus, but in the Sydney CBD.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Our home students are (mostly) eligible for loans which cover their fees and I think, if they meet the means test, some of their maintenance, and these are paid out by the local authority. And certainly Welsh students get their fees subsidised by the Welsh Government (OK, not the local council) and their fees will reflect their full or part time status.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
My university had mostly single rooms, with a few (cheaper) twins. IME the people who shared usually didn’t have a problem with it because they didn’t have their own room at home either – they were often used to sharing with a sibling.
Back on helicoptering, even in my day (15 years ago, give or take), I was one of the few students who stayed on campus at the weekends. My family were in the Midlands and the University was in Surrey so it was too far for me to go home more than once or twice a term. Most of the other students were from the home counties and the majority of them went home most weekends. I’m not sure it helped them grow into autonomous adults. They certainly settled much less quickly.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I agree. it does you a huge amount of good to get away from home when you're 18.
As a teenager I lived in London; when applying for Uni. one of my choices was Imperial College. My parents had a friend who was a lecturer there (in a different department to the one I was applying for) and he offered to show me round one Saturday.
We had a pleasant morning but then he turned to me and said, "Don't come here". I was surprised, knowing the College's reputation, and he told me that he believed getting away from home and joining in with student life was a fundamental part of the University experience.
Well, I did get offered a place at the College and - to my school's dismay! - I turned it down and went to Southampton instead. I never once regretted my decision.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
At Virginia Tech there are about 28,000 students, and less than 10,000 live on campus. The rest live in rented spaces around Blacksburg and adjacent towns. There are extensive bus routes, and buses are free for the students.
After the shootings in 2007, many parents descended on Blacksburg to take their sons or daughters home for the week when classes were cancelled. Quite a few students refused to leave; they wanted to be here with their fellow students.
There is a very strong sense of cohesion in the university community.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yes, there are so many factors that it varies tremendously from university to university, never mind country to country. But this allows kids to shop for something that will suit them. If you want a college where there is a powerful campus culture and life you can find that. If you want an urban college experience where much of the life takes place off campus that can be found too.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
There are many comments here about where college students live. You can also debate where the faculty should live. There is a definite negative effect, a loss of community, if faculty live at a substantial distance and commute.
I once applied for (but did not get) a job at a small college in Appalachia which requires all students and faculty to live on campus.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan - interesting comment from your parents' friend about Imperial. I was there and living away in London. There was absolutely no hope of commuting anywhere from home. There weren't enough hall places for most people to live in after first year, so I ended up in a grotty flat in Brixton (at the time of the riots) and a few other less salubrious places, so wasn't actually on campus much. I did learn a lot about dodgy landlords. But there was one guy still living at home on the course and he had a very different experience from the rest of us. (Imperial still had shared rooms in a lot of the dorms back then - and the best view ever of the Iranian embassy siege from the back of one of the Halls.)
My daughter applied to Imperial more to show she could get an offer too, but had no intention of going to a London university as she would have been expected to commute.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
There are many comments here about where college students live. You can also debate where the faculty should live. There is a definite negative effect, a loss of community, if faculty live at a substantial distance and commute.
I once applied for (but did not get) a job at a small college in Appalachia which requires all students and faculty to live on campus.
Even a much smaller requirement can have good effect: hubby used to teach at a small religious college which had a common lunch break for everyone-- staff, faculty and students-- during which no classes were offered and all offices were closed. Staff & faculty were given free passes to lunch in the common cafeteria. Compared to the larger uni where I teach (classes scheduled from 7 am to 11 pm, with no common break) it really did have a positive effect by creating this informal space each day for conversation between students, faculty, and staff.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is reasonable to require undergraduates to live within a reasonable commute of the university buildings. It is not reasonable to make any further requirements.
It depends whether we're talking about public or private colleges. At the public university where I last worked, a decision was made some years back for all dormitories to be non-smoking. No exceptions. I thought that this decision was terribly discriminatory and unfair to sovereign, taxpaying citizens who chose to engage in a perfectly legal activity, and one unrelated to academic ability. Smoking has become politically incorrect, you know. If the same university also pressured students to live on campus (which it does not, to my knowledge) the injustice would be doubled.
But a privately run institution should be considered much more free to make whatever requiremends it wishes. Vive la difference. If you don't like them, vote with your feet. (If I ran a university, a student would need to go outdoors not to smoke, but to use a cell phone ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) )
Thanks to the wisdom and sacrificial generosity of my non-helicopter parents, I lived on campus, even though home was less than a mile away. As they dropped me off at the dorm, their parting words were, "Don't come back home until Thanksgiving!" And I didn't. I didn't even feel a great desire to do so, despite a few challenges devastating to my self-confidence at the time. It's a far cry from today, when dormitories routinely empty every weekend.
In principle, and based on this experience, I'm all in favor of encouraging students to live on campus. But the university must do its part to make the proposition viable. This includes living conditions that don't require going to the library to find enough quiet to do a student's basic job, for Pete's sake!
While the caricature of a helicopter parent may be rarer than we might fear, it's lamentably a moving target. Anyone over 60 (or even 50) with memory intact should be able to testify to this. A parent today who grants a child mobility which I, and every kid I knew, could take for granted runs the risk of being arrested for negligence.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I thought that this decision was terribly discriminatory and unfair to sovereign, taxpaying citizens who chose to engage in a perfectly legal activity, and one unrelated to academic ability. Smoking has become politically incorrect, you know.
Alternatively, it costs an absolute fortune to clean and redecorate a room inhabited by a smoker, and they can't then hire out that room over the summer to paying guests because it stinks.
And you get to kill your roomie with secondary smoke too.
So yes, it must be due to 'political correctness'...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
Nobody I know lived away from home when at uni, in Australia. An up-to-date report... My sister's three live at home now, whilst studying medicine. It just seems more acceptable to stay with family, and cheaper. Not many accomodation options, and those that exist would be filled with country students who have to move, and OS students.
Different cultural norms.
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
The damaged lead up to total independence at university is not always the parents' fault. Some of it might be to do with increased health and safety and child protection concerns, leading to an artificially sheltered teenager-hood.
For example, I was staggered when one of my sons brought home a parental consent form for a club he belonged to. I was supposed to sign to say that, as he was still only 17, I would bring him and stay with him until the club started, in case the leader should be delayed and he might find himself alone with a non-DRB-checked adult. The laugh was, he had already passed his driving test and was driving himself to the club, after dropping me off at my computer course!
Teenagers, a generation previously, were quite independent and assumed to be capable of making up their own minds who they mixed with. It did lead, sometimes, to mistakes being made and people of ill intent taking advantage. But by trying to protect against all eventualities, much of the benefit of gaining independence has been lost. And increased bureaucracy is very good at playing on the fears of worried parents.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
But the age of 'responsibility' has always shifted. There was a time when the bar mitzvah really did mark your passage into adulthood.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Chorister, that is a standard safeguarding requirement for youth groups. We have parents of Guides (aged 10-14) dropping children off in the car park and sailing off elsewhere, without checking to see if the kids get in. Which when we take the Guides to other places could mean a 10 year old standing in a busy car park for 90 minutes in the dark. The car park next to a recreation ground where the older teenagers hang out together, some playing sport, some taking drugs and drinking.
It's a standard form.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Alogon: quote:
At the public university where I last worked, a decision was made some years back for all dormitories to be non-smoking. No exceptions. I thought that this decision was terribly discriminatory and unfair to sovereign, taxpaying citizens who chose to engage in a perfectly legal activity, and one unrelated to academic ability. Smoking has become politically incorrect, you know.
Smoking stinks the place out and, as Doc Tor has already pointed out, causes health problems for anyone forced to breathe in the smoke-laden air; serious problems if you're an asthmatic forced to share a room with a smoker.
But the real reason why most public buildings in the UK went smoke-free before it was a legal requirement is that they got a reduction in their fire insurance. Allowing smoking increases the risk of fire. Banning it reduces the overhead even before you factor in the reduced cleaning costs.
Do you believe in the free market or not? You can't have it both ways.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Chorister, that is a standard safeguarding requirement for youth groups. We have parents of Guides (aged 10-14) dropping children off in the car park and sailing off elsewhere, without checking to see if the kids get in. Which when we take the Guides to other places could mean a 10 year old standing in a busy car park for 90 minutes in the dark. The car park next to a recreation ground where the older teenagers hang out together, some playing sport, some taking drugs and drinking.
It's a standard form.
But it should be used with a certain amount of discretion- what makes sense for a 10 year old or a 14 year old might not make sense for a 17 year old.
Slight tangent but this is an example of the way that we are, in the UK at least, deeply confused about the transition to responsibility. For example, voting at 16 is now an element of quite mainstream political platforms: but at the same time we're becoming, rightly or not, protective of young people for longer. I don't know whether there are any 'right' answers but I put it down to social fragmentation and a rather sloppy liberalism.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
The point I am making though, Brenda and CK, is that because the age of responsibility is now deemed to be so late (18 not 10, we are not comparing like with like here), then parents are regarding their young people going off to university as still children, in need of their care. When the age of responsibility is deemed to be lower, say 14 or even 16, there are several years for the teenagers to flex their independence muscles before setting off for university - there is therefore no need for parents to accompany them and fuss around them for the first year.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
But the real reason why most public buildings in the UK went smoke-free before it was a legal requirement is that they got a reduction in their fire insurance.he free market or not? You can't have it both ways.
Which is a far better point than mine. +1 internets.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I was only 17 when I went to Uni. I wouldn't have had any problem drinking at the bar even though I was technically underage, as a Uni. ID card was considered to be sufficient to gain access.
I never went, though - not part of my culture.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But it should be used with a certain amount of discretion- what makes sense for a 10 year old or a 14 year old might not make sense for a 17 year old.
Actually, it IS used with discretion--what's going on here is the institution is putting the policy on a form for parents to sign and agree to. If the parents THEN go on to completely disregard the potential issue, believing their children to be mature enough to cope, they may. But the institution is now off the hook, legally speaking. It has covered its ass by having the parents assume responsibility for deciding what is proper discretion or not.
This is a pretty common stratagem.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
No, that's not discretion: that is as you say an institution playing safe and covering their back.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yes, a great deal of this is driven by insurance issues. Ass coverage rules.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I was only 17 when I went to Uni. I wouldn't have had any problem drinking at the bar even though I was technically underage, as a Uni. ID card was considered to be sufficient to gain access.
I never went, though - not part of my culture.
I was also 17 for the first six months of college. I was only "carded" (asked for i.d.) twice, and both times proof that I was a student at my college got me in.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
At the public university where I last worked, a decision was made some years back for all dormitories to be non-smoking. No exceptions. I thought that this decision was terribly discriminatory and unfair to sovereign, taxpaying citizens who chose to engage in a perfectly legal activity...
Way back when I was in college, preventing cigarette smoking in the dorms wouldn't have been as much of a problem as preventing all types of smoking. The preferred substance was not "a perfectly legal activity."
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
At my kids' universities, ID cards for under-18s have "under 18" in bold red writing.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Kid Independence as Cultural
That is how things were when I was a child, England in the 1950s.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
The cover article "Better Watch What You Say" in the current issue of Atlantic makes fascinating, if horrifying, reading. Thank God I'm retired from the mad-house that an American campus has apparently become. Attempts to make them "safe places" have backfired and made them more dangerous places to work in than ever before.
The chickens of political correctness and helicopter parenting are coming home to roost. In their second generation, they are now embodied not primarily in faculty, but in hypersensitive students who consider their poor widdo feewings sovereign and are as ready as coiled rattlesnakes to lash out at anyone who "offends" them by committing a "microaggression", however unintentional. The authors explain that such attitudes and responses are psychologically maladaptive and will only increase the incidence of depression and other mental illnesses. We get stronger by facing and overcoming our fears, not by avoiding situations that might "trigger" them.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Kid Independence as Cultural
That is how things were when I was a child, England in the 1950s.
Me too, in the 1960s. But then I did live in a fairly rural area, not the urban sprawl of a capital city. Times have certainly changed. There is much fear - some of it probably well founded. But much of it not. I guess the problem is that people are not really sure how to tell the difference.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Don't remember running errands when I was a small kid in Brixton in the early 70s, but I do remember going to and from school there on my own- I suppose about 3/4 mile- and we left there a couple of months after my seventh birthday.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
My first experience with independence was somewhat accidental. It was "visitor's day" at the kindergarten class I'd begin attending the following year, so that would make me four years old. School was about half a mile from home. Grandma said that she would meet me there after school and walk me home. When the class let out to the playground, I looked around. No Grandma. So I successfully walked home on my own, even though uncertain exactly how to get there. Going through the door, Grandma was surprised to see me. She was just about to leave for the school. Why was I so early?
Well, I didn't know about recess. We had gone outdoors for recess, not the end of the school day.
But after that, no problem walking to and from school alone, even though I was probably more sheltered and reticent than many age-mates. From age 9 up, I could and did bicycle wherever I wished in cities of 35000-50000. This was standard practice.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Chorister, that is a standard safeguarding requirement for youth groups. We have parents of Guides (aged 10-14) dropping children off in the car park and sailing off elsewhere, without checking to see if the kids get in. Which when we take the Guides to other places could mean a 10 year old standing in a busy car park for 90 minutes in the dark. The car park next to a recreation ground where the older teenagers hang out together, some playing sport, some taking drugs and drinking.
It's a standard form.
Mind you. I'd have wished for a bit of helicopter parenting (or at least a bit of reasonable attention) a couple of days ago. I was driving past a church hall at around 4.30 where there was some kind of children's activity going on ..... a gate opens and a child (about 6 years old) bolts straight out across an 8 foot pavement and onto a busy road, no adult in sight at the gate. Fortunately I'd been slowed well below the usual and legal 30 mph but it still meant a sudden stop. A close one as the aged P (85) in the front seat acknowledged.
Helicopter parenting may be one extreme, laissez faire is another - which is why we have so many risk assessments around. It's a lurch from extreme to extreme
Change the circumstances slightly: I am not slowed, I am arriving earlier by the hall, I am not driving close to the middle of the road (parked car) by 2 feet from the kerb as prescribed by road conditions and the Highway Code. If I hit the child who will get the rap? Me and my nasty car. Not the parent, not the "responsible" person, not the failed gatekeeper: me.
It happened once before: driving past a school at less than 10 mph (you couldn't do any faster) and a child ran out between 2 parked cars right in front of me. I don't know how I stopped even at 1- mph but I did - cue mum to ring the Police. Cue Policeman about to book me until a parent comes up and tells Mr Plod that the parent was not in control of the child and that she'd seen me stop and start over a 50 yard stretch of road from a minor crossroads owing to cars parking/stopping on double yellows to let children out, people crossing roads etc. Speed beyond 10 mph was actually impossible. I rather suspect my job and career were saved by that honesty.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quote:
Alogon: At the public university where I last worked, a decision was made some years back for all dormitories to be non-smoking. No exceptions. I thought that this decision was terribly discriminatory and unfair to sovereign, taxpaying citizens who chose to engage in a perfectly legal activity, and one unrelated to academic ability. Smoking has become politically incorrect, you know.
Smoking stinks the place out and, as Doc Tor has already pointed out, causes health problems for anyone forced to breathe in the smoke-laden air; serious problems if you're an asthmatic forced to share a room with a smoker.
But the real reason why most public buildings in the UK went smoke-free before it was a legal requirement is that they got a reduction in their fire insurance. Allowing smoking increases the risk of fire. Banning it reduces the overhead even before you factor in the reduced cleaning costs.
Do you believe in the free market or not? You can't have it both ways.
Fuck 'em. Anyone stupid enough to take up smoking in this day and age should deal with their idiocy before trying a college degree if they can't manage their addiction without prejudicing other people's health.
[Helicopter host rescues terminally awful UBB code]
[ 30. September 2015, 07:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Mind you. I'd have wished for a bit of helicopter parenting (or at least a bit of reasonable attention) a couple of days ago.
I guess this whole thread hinges on where the balance is between overprotectiveness and neglect. I suspect that the grey area between the two is very wide. But we all recognise the extremes at both ends when they occur - and which both seem very wrong.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Here you are, another age anomaly, taken I admit deliberately to the point of absurdity. As of today it is illegal to smoke in a car in England and Wales with a person under 18 present.
So, 35 year old man with an 18 year old daughter can go out for a drive and puff away to their hearts' content. Man then meets and marries 17 year old girl. Man, daughter, and new wife then go out for drive. Man and daughter light up and they are committing an offence.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Here you are, another age anomaly, taken I admit deliberately to the point of absurdity. As of today it is illegal to smoke in a car in England and Wales with a person under 18 present.
So, 35 year old man with an 18 year old daughter can go out for a drive and puff away to their hearts' content. Man then meets and marries 17 year old girl. Man, daughter, and new wife then go out for drive. Man and daughter light up and they are committing an offence.
This can't be an unusual occurrence in jurisdictions where the legal drinking age is 21.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So, 35 year old man with an 18 year old daughter can go out for a drive and puff away to their hearts' content. Man then meets and marries 17 year old girl. Man, daughter, and new wife then go out for drive. Man and daughter light up and they are committing an offence.
Do you think he has a bit of a problem in entering into relationships when either he or his partner are too young? (Do the maths!) ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Two points. It is illegal to smoke in a car if someone under 18 is present. So would it be illegal for a 17-year old, driving alone, to light up? (I haven't looked at the legislation to see how it is phrased).
The other issue is enforcement. If it is enforced at all, I guess it will only be when obviously much younger children are present.
Despite its anomalies, I welcome this legislation. I hated being in the car with my parents smoking.
[ 01. October 2015, 09:39: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
If a 35 year old man has an 18 year old daughter and a 17 year old wife, smoking in a car is the least of his problems.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
If a 35 year old man has an 18 year old daughter and a 17 year old wife, smoking in a car is the least of his problems.
A 17 year old wife and an 18 year old son could be even more of a problem. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
To return to the infographic included in the OP, one of the symptoms / results of helicopter parenting it gives is: "Millenials are now the most protected and programmed generation in history who talk to their parents on average 8.8 times per week."
The "in history" is of course rubbish; in Victorian times it was usual for adult children to remain in the family home until marriage, handing their pay packets over to the parents. Presumably they spoke to their parents more than 8.8 times per week.
However, if there has been a recent increase in young adults talking to their parents, might this not simply reflect that modern communications make it easier to talk to anybody at a distance?
We get a lot of one-liner communications from our two at Uni. If you include texts / messages on FB, more than 8.8 per week, but this just reflects the ease of sending a text / message / phoning. My generation at Uni had to queue to use a payphone, and have a stack of coins ready to feed it.
It would be unusual for us not to get some form of communication every day from our two, both at Uni, but I think this simply reflects the ease of contact, rather than being symptomatic of "helicopter parenting."
It's a generational shift, rather than anything else.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amorya
Ship's tame galoot
# 2652
|
Posted
I think there's two questions to ask to see if there is helicopter parenting going on:
- If their offspring is in a sticky situation, do the parents give advice to said offspring, or do they try to get involved and solve the problem directly?
- Do the parents keep tabs on their offspring, maybe through having an expectation that the child will keep them informed about what's going on in their life? What happens if they don't hear anything for a bit?
When I went off to uni, I tried to contact my parents very little during the first term. (Sadly I failed almost immediately when the student loans company messed up, and sent a document I needed to my home address rather than my uni address, so I had to phone my parents and get them to forward my post very urgently!)
But after that, I would ask for advice whenever I was confronted by a new situation. In my second year, I was renting a house for the first time, and an unscrupulous estate agent tried to take advantage of me. I went first to the students union advice and welfare service, but I also called my dad to ask his advice on what to do. He dispensed some helpful suggestions, and asked me to let him know how it went.
If he had offered to phone the estate agent on my behalf, it might have been approaching helicopter-ness. If he had insisted on it, it definitely would have been. If it turns out he already knew about my housing situation because he'd insisted on helping me choose where to live in my second year and wanted veto power over all the houses I looked at, that would have been absolutely terrible!
Luckily my dad had more sense than that ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
If my son (age 26) asks for advice or help I am prompt to reply. Sometimes not helpfully, but I always respond. I make a concerted effort not to offer unsolicited advice. But I would intervene if I felt an appalling error was being made (putting gasoline into a diesel engine, for example). Luckily he is a sensible young man and has mostly got past the age of horrific error. Also, certain areas I have decreed completely off limits. I will not advise on his love life or career choices. All mistakes made there are his own.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
Through all of this I have been reflecting on 'How Times Have Changed,' and not always for the better.
I entered uni (at age 17) in 1957. It was a large, private school approx 500 miles from my home. It was in a large metropolitan area -- my home town had a pop. of 2000. All first-year students were assigned to double-room dormitories -- no choosing of roommates; they were assigned. Bathroom down the hall. No fridge or cooking facilities. Second year one could move to fraternity/sorority house if one was pledged and there was room available. First-years couldn't have cars; second-years could, but they had to be parked at the football stadium (quite a distance away). Meals had to be taken in uni dining rooms, and if you skipped a meal you were charged for it anyway. In fact, you had already paid for it with your tuition at the beginning of the term.
On the plus side, we had (gasp!) maid service! Rooms cleaned and beds made daily.
It was quite a shock when I took my son to uni and saw the condition of his 'suite' shared with 5 others (3 micro-rooms with a common bath).
My parents didn't helicopter, though I was their only child. They dropped me at the dorm, my dad helped me unload the car, and they left. They stayed in town for a few days, and we had church and Sunday dinner together, and that was it.
I likewise didn't helicopter. And no umbilical phoning, either.
Things seem to have worked out well in both generations.
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
Through all of this I have been reflecting on 'How Times Have Changed,' and not always for the better.
I entered uni (at age 17) in 1957. It was a large, private school approx 500 miles from my home. It was in a large metropolitan area -- my home town had a pop. of 2000. All first-year students were assigned to double-room dormitories -- no choosing of roommates; they were assigned. Bathroom down the hall. No fridge or cooking facilities. Second year one could move to fraternity/sorority house if one was pledged and there was room available. First-years couldn't have cars; second-years could, but they had to be parked at the football stadium (quite a distance away). Meals had to be taken in uni dining rooms, and if you skipped a meal you were charged for it anyway. In fact, you had already paid for it with your tuition at the beginning of the term.
On the plus side, we had (gasp!) maid service! Rooms cleaned and beds made daily.
It was quite a shock when I took my son to uni and saw the condition of his 'suite' shared with 5 others (3 micro-rooms with a common bath).
My parents didn't helicopter, though I was their only child. They dropped me at the dorm, my dad helped me unload the car, and they left. They stayed in town for a few days, and we had church and Sunday dinner together, and that was it.
I likewise didn't helicopter. And no umbilical phoning, either.
Things seem to have worked out well in both generations.
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So, 35 year old man with an 18 year old daughter can go out for a drive and puff away to their hearts' content. Man then meets and marries 17 year old girl. Man, daughter, and new wife then go out for drive. Man and daughter light up and they are committing an offence.
Do you think he has a bit of a problem in entering into relationships when either he or his partner are too young? (Do the maths!)
Two points. It is illegal to smoke in a car if someone under 18 is present. So would it be illegal for a 17-year old, driving alone, to light up? (I haven't looked at the legislation to see how it is phrased).
The other issue is enforcement. If it is enforced at all, I guess it will only be when obviously much younger children are present.
Despite its anomalies, I welcome this legislation. I hated being in the car with my parents smoking.
Is it actually l;egal for a 17 year old to smoke at all? I don't know. Certainly the age for buying cigarettes was put up from 16 a few years ago- at about the same time as the age of consent for gay sex was lowered from 18 to 16. So, as I use to joke to my students when getting them to think about what 'adult' means,now you can have gay sex at 16 but you can't light up afterwards.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
It actually makes sense to me that there are different consents for different ages. It means that teenagers can get used to being adults in gradual stages rather than suddenly all at once.
By contrast, I find it terrifying when children who have been mollycoddled by their parents right up to the age of 18, suddenly let them backpack around the world in their gap year! Surely it is better to introduce independence gradually from 11 onwards, so that they are fully independent by age 18?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Oh yes, I agree.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There is no legal age for smoking, there is only a legal age for purchase of tobacco (now 18). The police will take cigarettes off teenagers under 18 if they caught smoking on the street, although the teenagers will probably have to catch PC Plod's eye for another reason.
I stood behind a mother and her teenaged twins all smoking in the queue for the London Dungeon a few years back. She was moaning that the cash desk weren't letting her buy children's tickets for the teenagers, who were only 13! I refrained from making any of several rejoinders to that one.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
