Ship of Fools: Helicopter parents are harming their kids. Stop it!

Thread: Helicopter parents are harming their kids. Stop it! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029535

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The damaging effects of helicopter parenting apparently include children who cannot cope with basic daily personal responsibilities.

Have you had interactions with helicopter parents? Can you believe that a parent would try to influence their adult child's job interview or hiring? Or would show up on a university campus to organize the adult child's classes or residence? For younger kids, not let them walk or ride a bike to friend's house?

I don't know, it floors me. Many incompetent children and many incompetent adults would appear to be the result.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I work at a university campus. We hear lots of tales of helicopter parents, but for the most part they seem to be far fewer than the rumors make them out to be. They're easily mockable, but nearly as prevalent as people seem to think they are. I teach around 200 undergrads a year for the last 10 years, in all that time, I've only had one parent contact me, and that was a parent who was reasonably concerned about their child's mental health, and they understood when I explained the legal barriers that prevented me from telling them much.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Thanks for that, np. I've heard of this phenomenon, but that explains it quite clearly.
I also work at a university campus as an educator, and I teach roughly twice as many students a year as cliffdweller. And like him or her, I haven't experienced much of this phenomenon yet. A mother did phone me once asking for an extension for her daughter's assignment, which I thought was odd, but at the time assumed was because her daughter was just too ill to ask herself.
It does sound damaging, particularly if the progeny do not have the resources to effectively re-parent themselves and learn to look after themselves and take responsibility for their own lives.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The infographic has some issues, most notably just assuming a connection between higher rates of psych drugs, counseling, etc. and helicopter parenting. The two may not be connected at all. They may both be consequences of something else. The h. parenting may even be a result of the psych problems. Sloppy logic.

Similarly, the fact that an adult child wants to speak with parents before accepting a job offer could be due to something as understandable and mundane as the fact that they live in a shared household, and there are transportation issues or a need to rearrange who's watching great-grandma-with-Alzheimer's during which hours (if possible). Of course, it would be more professional to simply ask for a short period to consider (and not mention parents), but that's completely understandable for people with no adult work experience to speak of yet.

I have to say that I've not seen this phenomenon myself on the college level. I'm seeing a mild version of it among middle-school students (ages 12-14) but that seems understandable as roles are changing during these years, and there are bound to be slips. Plus the kids I'm observing tend to be mildly autistic or have other issues, which skews my data.

[ 25. September 2015, 03:55: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

It happened to me! My mother-in-law, who was a high up in the education authority, interfered with the interview for my first job.

Her friend was on the interview panel. Reading between the lines she had definitely 'put in a good word' unbeknownst to me. I came out with it (always the forthright one) and said '*** is a good friend of my MIL' *** went bright red and very flustered!

I got the job anyway but I was furious!

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

My mother wanted to try to get me a job after graduation. As she so helpfully said, she couldn't imagine anyone wanting to employ me on my own merits. (N.B. this was indicative of her own anxiety, not her being bitchy.)

The job I got, on my own, was far better than the one she wanted to try to get for me. She then spent the next two years fretting that the firm that employed me would realise their mistake and fire me. [Disappointed]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

That's quite funny, though not, I guess, if you had to live through it.

Posted by Wet Kipper (# 1654) on :

My wife is an Undergraduate Administrator in a University.
She has often told me of parents calling to check if their offspring are attending classes, or to appeal against a low result or an invoice/ fine preventing them from graduating.

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

I'm in a similar position to Wet Kipper and, yes, helicopter parents exist. Not in huge numbers, but they certainly exist. And it's the administrative staff's task to ease them away, "little Johnny might not seem to be making many friends yet, perhaps that's because you, Johnny's mother, are still here".

Part of the problem is the gulf between what parents think they should be allowed to know - everything - and what they can be told - nothing, really nothing. It might seem OTT that a university cannot even confirm to a parent if their son/daughter attends the university but their offspring are adults and confidentiality rules apply. I'm sure folks can imagine, there are situations where Jane's father really cannot be allowed to know that Jane is here.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Is this an entirely new thing? I knew a couple of people whose parents more or less decided at an early age that they were going to go into the family business, and made decisions for them based on that. A helicopter parent might have seemed like light relief in comparison.

One student in my year at Uni arrived with his mother, who slept on the floor of his room in halls till the authorities realised and she was chucked out.

I yearned for long hair, and my mother took me to the hairdresser till I went to Uni, to make sure my hair was kept cut short. (This meant that while other Freshers were thinking Yay! Freedom! Drugs 'n' sex 'n' rock&roll! I was thinking Yay! Freedom! Shoulder-length hair!)

I was an incompetent adult when I started Uni, but I muddled through.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

FWIW, I don't think I helicopter my own two, and have actively tried to give them more choices and responsibilities than I had in my teens. I'm not defending helicoptering, just saying that it doesn't sound "new" to me - quite a lot in that infographic sounds familiar, apart from the contact with University authorities. Mum didn't do that.

The best descriptor from the infographic is that of "security guard" - Mum stopped me from doing things because she was afraid I would fail.

[ 25. September 2015, 12:47: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :

There has certainly been a change in degree of parental involvement. 20-30 years ago prospective students would usually have made their own way to university interviews, unless they needed parental transport. The idea of being accompanied by one's parents would have seemed embarrassingly childish.

Now it's quite usual for parents to accompany children on interview days, and for 'events' (tours,presentations etc) to be laid on for the parents. Part of this is a result of the introduction of tuition fees, often paid by parents. If they are forking out the money, parents feel the need/right to look at where the money's going.

So even non-helicopter parents tend to be more involved than they were in the 'old days', when they would barely have heard from their offspring between the send-off in September and the return home with a bag-full of washing at Christmas.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Cue a massive clash of parenting styles in the Tor household...

"What do you mean you didn't book a ticket for me at the introductory talk?"

"Well, I thought you'd be going round the art galleries and coffee shops, not hanging around the university and bugging the hell out of our daughter while she at least pretends she's a grown-up."

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

I yearned for long hair, and my mother took me to the hairdresser till I went to Uni, to make sure my hair was kept cut short. (This meant that while other Freshers were thinking Yay! Freedom! Drugs 'n' sex 'n' rock&roll! I was thinking Yay! Freedom! Shoulder-length hair!)

This is evil of me, and not to be taken seriously, but I have occasionally wondered if I should be wholly unreasonable about some minor, minor thing in LL's life (like hair) just so that when he goes through his rebellion against me, he ends up picking an area where he will do himself no.harm.at.all.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

My wife and I had to become helicopter parents for our second son. He developed anorexia nervousa in his freshman year of college. He was not able to make decisions for himself. We intervened and got him to a hospital that supposedly specialized in eating disorders. While he completed the program it did not take long for him to relapse.

But when he relapsed he was in India! Fortunately the school he was attending paid his way back to the United States. We got him back into a different program at another hospital.

A couple of days into the stay his heart stopped. Fortunately they were able to revive him.

He did well during the hospital stay but he resisted the outpatient program. The outpatient director called us and suggested we might want to get a court order to put him into receivership which would allow us to make the medical decisions for him.

I immediately drove 500 miles to meet with him and his counselor to do another intervention. During the drive, the clinic kept working on our son to get him to make the turn himself. By the time I arrived he had committed to the program.

That was over ten years ago. I have to say he has been in sustained recovery ever since. He actually married a chef who is skilled at monitoring his dietary needs. They now have a son who is 21 months old.

We also havw another son who was involved in a very bad accident. While he had been with his girl friend for five years, technically they were not married which meant we were the "next of kin." The hospital had to contact us to make the medical decisions. When we got there to the hospital, this son was very much out of it. It lasted for about a week. Finally he told the doctor the medications they were giving him was making him loopy. The doctor started to wean him off the opiates and his mind cleared.

When we had gotten to the hospital we were told to expect him to stay in the hospital for at least a month. But after his mind cleared he was discharged on the second week. He still had a long way to go in recovery but he was able to do it through outpatient work near where he lived.

He has since married his girl friend.

This son just reached a settlement with the parties that were involved.

My point is sometimes a parent has to step in.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Yours was an emergency rescue helicopter; yours was a noble endeavor. [Overused]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

My husband and I used to say that parents have twenty years to make themselves superfluous.

After that, the parents give help occasionally when it's needed, but basically the son or daughter is autonomous.

Moo

Posted by Rosalind (# 317) on :

6 years ago I drove daughter no3 and her friend to an open day in Leeds - it would have been expensive and time consuming for 2 of them to get there by train. On arrival, I found the alumni association had kindly set up a 'parents' creche' with sofas, coffee and sandwiches, newspapers, etc so parents could relax and recuperate from the drive which the students could look around. When daughter and friend reappeared some hours later they told me that one dad had joined in all the tours, getting to the front and interrogating all the lecturers while his son looked miserable and self conscious, While I would have liked to look round the university and asked questions, I knew that it was my daughter's choice that mattered and anyway she would have been mad at me if I had embarrassed her like that! But at least the university had been sensible and provided a space for parents/chauffeuses to spend the day.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

When I dropped my daughter off at Stanford, the school put on a dinner for us. We sat at round tables set up on the basketball court. I shared a table with a woman who could not stop crying. Her darling boy had never lived away from home, she wept. He knew not of hangers! He was in the habit of laying his clean laundry out on the floor until he was ready to wear it! We assured her that this was what Heaven had ordained roommates for, and that he was a clever boy -- he had gotten accepted, had he not? A very few weeks of having his shirts walked on by his roommate and he would learn how to use a closet and hangers.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

The relationship/generation can make a difference. We just moved our middle child into his freshman dorm room 2 weeks ago. He's going to the same uni I work for and that daughter #1 graduated from 5 yrs ago. It turned out daughter and SIL were in town for move-in weekend, so they came along which worked out delightfully. Their presence heightened the specialness of this milestone. But they were also able to give advise, tours, etc.-- pretty much the same advise & tours I woulda given, but coming from an older sibling it came across as fun insider knowledge rather than parental nattering.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We assured her that this was what Heaven had ordained roommates for

On this subject, can anyone explain why American universities all seem to do this? It can't be space - in the UK, having your own private shoebox is the norm.

So why do Americans want to share a bedroom?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is billed as an educational thing -- they try to match up roommates for compatibility (music, etc.) but also mix up geographical areas, majors, etc. It is a chance, possibly the first one the kid will have, to really get to know someone of another race, economic strata, and so on. There may also be a money thing in there; to build or rebuild dorms is expensive and the older rooms were all designed for 2 or even 3 residents. And of course there is tradition; the freshmen especially may be obliged by school policy to live on campus in dorms. As they get older they can live off campus, or select their room mate. But at the outset, the school sets it up.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

I think some care is needed here. It's one thing for a parent to butt in and get involved on a day to day basis, it's quite another for a parent to be interested in what's going on. Eyes on but hands off kind of thing - very different from the parents who are always phoning, monopolise teachers etc.

Sadly some academic institutions apply the term "helicopter" to any parental contact; a kind of displacement to deflect their own guilt or inadequacy. It's a means of downplaying what might amount to serious concerns about a child and/or teaching.

If I am going to pay several £000's a year for my child's education (at any age - don't forget we pay for education through taxation in the Uk), then I expect a reasonable level of competence and partnership. It seems bizarre - as one or two teachers have told me - that they are above good, hones and constructive feedback from parents.

If it doesn't come up to what I'd consider adequate then like any "product" I'm going to be calling someone to task. Not a helicopter more a questioner.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

There are degrees. I agree with Exclamation Mark. Nevertheless, being a helicopter parent is obviously a bad thing.

Once again, though, as with the thread about banning sex robots, just because we don't like something, why does that mean that we think it's our job to stop other people doing it? Why do we think we're entitled to tell other people how they should live their lives? Or for that matter, to post on a thread that the sort of people we've chosen not to like today aren't likely to read anyway, telling the world what we think of them?

There was another thread a few weeks ago about banning bottled water which struck me in the same way.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My husband and I used to say that parents have twenty years to make themselves superfluous.

After that, the parents give help occasionally when it's needed, but basically the son or daughter is autonomous.

In theory!

Our sons are 27 and 30 and the 'bank of Mum and Dad' finally closed last month!

Boogielet2 will be paying us back for some years to come (we stumped up half of his pilots training fees as we didn't want him paying extortionate interest) Boogielet1 has only just finished at university - far too many degrees than is good for him (!) [Biased]

Both are self supporting now, but it has taken a while.

Quite a few of our friends (counts ... that will be 5 couples) still have kids aged 25+ living at home.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Leorning Cniht:

quote:
So why do Americans want to share a bedroom?

I always thought it was to make 'hooking up' harder.

British universities used to do this too; the original colleges in my alma mater (built in the sixties) mostly had double rooms to begin with. When these (almost immediately) went out of fashion, they were subdivided into tiny poky single bedrooms. By the time I went there in the mid-80s there were only a few double rooms left. Nowadays students in college live in the lap of luxury; the newest rooms have an ensuite shower and everyone has wireless Internet. I would have killed for an ensuite room.

Of course, this was before being gay/bisexual/trans/genderfluid was a thing, so the university authorities just assumed everyone was cisgender and heterosexual. Nowadays assigning roommates must be a lot more difficult...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Going to college far enough away that the heli-parent (hellish parent?) can't easily follow you can be a great help and relief.

In my case, the person was more a combo of a drone and a strangler fig. While they hassled me a great deal from a distance, it *was* from a distance--except during vacations. I learned to stay at/near school during vacations. (Work; house-sitting; unofficially staying in the dorm, because sometimes Resident Advisers allowed people to stay who had to be in town for an internship, work, or personal reasons.)

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

At first I thought the article was a joke, an example of a helicopter author who was afraid I couldn't read well and needed to have lots of pictures in place of words and plenty of bright colors to keep my interest.

I think the constant connection by cellphone has probably contributed to the idea that parents must follow every second of the child's day. It used to be that the first day of school, at age five or six, was a notable moment in the breaking of the cord, when the child went a whole day without talking to Mommy. That's all over now and teens are calling Mom between every class.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Leorning Cniht:
quote:
So why do Americans want to share a bedroom?
I always thought it was to make 'hooking up' harder.

...

That's what the sock on the doorknob is for. [Biased]

Seriously, though, another reason for double rooms and shared washrooms is to make it easier to spot if someone is becoming withdrawn and isolated.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There are degrees. I agree with Exclamation Mark. Nevertheless, being a helicopter parent is obviously a bad thing.

Once again, though, as with the thread about banning sex robots, just because we don't like something, why does that mean that we think it's our job to stop other people doing it? Why do we think we're entitled to tell other people how they should live their lives? Or for that matter, to post on a thread that the sort of people we've chosen not to like today aren't likely to read anyway, telling the world what we think of them?

There was another thread a few weeks ago about banning bottled water which struck me in the same way.

Yes. There are huge cultural differences at play, especially with first-generation college students whose parents may not know what is "expected" but are nonetheless thrilled to have a child progress to college. I enjoyed this article about one such family.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Living at home isn't necessarily helicopter parenting. Helicopter parenting would be parenting the 25 year old like (s)he was 12. Say, making their lunch, driving them to work, phoning their boss when they are sick. It's not about paying for everything either. It's about the level of you as parent running their lives and being involved. Attending on a sick child regardless of age isn't helicoptering either.

How about this example, randomly repeated on the interwebs, originating on Reddit:
"roommate in college would not do his laundry, ever, until his mom came to do it for him...his mom would come in and basically monopolize the dorm laundry facilities for 3 hours doing all his laundry.”

If your child wanted to take a trip to another country, would you insist on a message every day, arrange to take a trip yourself to same country, give them money to have "safer" accommodation and travel, or ask them to message you every few days or when they switch locations?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Seriously, though, another reason for double rooms and shared washrooms is to make it easier to spot if someone is becoming withdrawn and isolated.

That reasoning smells just a little post hoc to me [Smile]

The sharing a bedroom thing just seems like an obviously sub-par arrangement to me. Now I will grant that I am deeply introverted and need to be able to shut the world out and recharge. Having to share accommodation with some random stranger seems horrific to me.

That aside, it seems impractical, too. When I was a student, I kept pretty irregular hours: sometimes I'd be out till late, sometimes I'd be tired and want an early night, and sometimes I'd be working all night in order to finish a piece of work, hand it in at 6 in the morning, and then sleep till lunchtime.

My neighbours kept similarly varied hours - but they were different hours. This works just fine when everyone has a different bedroom, but it's a disaster if you're sharing.

I would expect if you select two random students, the chance that you find that one wants to sit and work at the same time as the other wants to sleep would be pretty high. How does that work, in practice? Because it sounds sucky.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I always thought it was just a straight up finance thing- a single is a luxury to be exploited.

In other words- " why do Americans want to share? " is the wrong question- the question is," why do American Universities make a shared room the default?" Because most students I know wouldn't choose it themselves. See anecdote above,

[ 26. September 2015, 18:51: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I always thought it was just a straight up finance thing- a single is a luxury to be exploited.

I'm surprised that market forces haven't changed that. When I was applying for university places, single accommodation was typical, but some places had a mix of singles and shared rooms, and "couldn't guarantee that you would be allocated a single room if you wanted one."

So I didn't apply to any of those places.

Land prices in most of the US are much lower than most of the UK; it can't be more expensive for US universities to offer single rooms than UK ones. Here's an article talking about how there's apparently more demand for single rooms in US universities now. It's full of quotes from people who want to be forced to share a bedroom with a random stranger. It's also a bit odd that the single room on offer is a double room with one bed, rather than a smaller room.

(It can't just be a price thing. A friend's daughter has just gone off to college, and my friend has spent all summer dealing with communications from the daughter's prospective roommate's mother, along the lines of "I'm buying so-and-so this expensive monogrammed bathrobe and set of towels. Would you like to buy your daughter the same thing so that they match?" These people could afford a single - they just don't want one. I find that strange. [Biased]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm pretty sure it's a finance thing, and largely a historical finance thing--most colleges with dorms built them when it was even more unaffordable than now to have everybody in single rooms (particularly if bathrooms or kitchens or both are attached) and so to make ends meet, students had to suck it up and live communally.

It's not that bad. I did it for four years (college gave every four of us the equivalent of a two bedroom apartment). You learn to accommodate each other's needs and quirks. My first year I slept in the same room as a profoundly deaf roommate, and I had to take special care not to let light leak into the room while she was sleeping, as that would wake her up right away. (bedroom door opened to corridor, which was always lit--a bit of a challenge).

If you really can't stand each other, you try to rejig housing accommodations with someone else, and then put your plan before the housing authority to get them to sign off on it. But how many students spend a lot of time at home anyway?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm pretty sure it's a finance thing, and largely a historical finance thing--most colleges with dorms built them when it was even more unaffordable than now to have everybody in single rooms (particularly if bathrooms or kitchens or both are attached) and so to make ends meet, students had to suck it up and live communally.

This, and then (as you say) the students discover along the way that it isn't that terrible, and then it becomes a kind of rite of passage.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But how many students spend a lot of time at home anyway?

It was where I used to work. Some people liked to go to the library to work, but most didn't (and there's no way the libraries had enough seating for everyone to do that!)

I spent no time at all sitting around in my room just hanging out - if I was at a loose end, I either went to the bar, or to one of the common areas to find people who were similarly at leisure. I'd imagine I spent something in the vicinity of 40 hours a week at my desk. I don't think I was unusual.

(Re en-suite rooms upthread, it was my understanding that these were driven by the conference trade. Universities make money by renting out student accommodation for conferences in the summer, but conference attendees don't want a shared bathroom down the hall. When I was an undergraduate, there was one new accommodation block that had en-suite rooms; these were 10-15% more expensive than the shared bathroom ones.)

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... I would expect if you select two random students, the chance that you find that one wants to sit and work at the same time as the other wants to sleep would be pretty high. How does that work, in practice? Because it sounds sucky.

In practice, it isn't random, and a great deal of effort goes into trying to make it less sucky. Without going into too much detail, in some cases they choose someone they already know e.g. from high school for a roommate. They are also matched up by early bird vs. night owl; alcohol or not; and a bunch of other stuff. And they are put in contact with each other before the term starts.

But once the term starts? That's when the helicopter parenting has a huge impact. The precious snowflakes been shielded from conflict and disappointment, they've been told to never talk to strangers, they've done a lot of their communicating electronically, and as a result they kinda suck at talking to people and resolving arguments.

(They even find it hard to make small talk. Overheard on bus: "So I asked the guy, what's your name? And he said 'Ravi'. I said, 'My name is Jas.' And he said, 'OK' and walked away." But at least one of them knew how to start a conversation, so there's hope.)

When they do end up in conflict with each other, some of their strategies are to try to get an authority figure to tell the other person they're wrong; try to move away from the problem; or be a jerk and hope they'll go away.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes. There are huge cultural differences at play, especially with first-generation college students whose parents may not know what is "expected" but are nonetheless thrilled to have a child progress to college. I enjoyed this article about one such family.

English is my first language. I went to an internationally renowned university. In the past I've taught 1st degree students. And I don't know what

quote:
intersectionalities

means either.

I suppose the advantage I have from the education I've received is that I now know enough to know that anyone who chooses to use a word like that is a kackhound,

[ 26. September 2015, 21:12: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I came across this article today, and it horrified me.

I'm glad the father came to his senses eventually, but I'm disturbed that it took him awhile.

Moo

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

None of you ever stayed in youth hostels? The basic drill is a building of some sort with bunk beds, where you end up in a room with 2 or 3 others, sometimes up to 6 others. You cook in a communal kitchen and sit at communal tables for meals. Typically, you make friends pretty fast and do some things together where you are staying. I stayed in my first one in the early 1970s, and most recently in 2014- not a youth any more body, but pretend I am in spirit.

My kids have stayed overseas almost exclusively in youth hostels. And it can't be a gender thing, seeing as all my daughters have travelled alone widely and always stayed in hostels. There's nothing better than coming to some place where you have almost no idea of anything and don't speak the language and hand out the first evening with people who've been there a few days and give you tips or you make some joint plans with. The tips you receive enrich your soul and usually cause a side trip someplace you would otherwise haven't known about.

You have to do at least "functional extroversion" which is possible except for those who should definitely stay at home. Earplugs are also a good idea.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I still stay in youth hostels, ironically mostly with my grown up daughter, although my most recent trip was on my own so I was in dorms. One night was in a 4 bed dorm and the other had 16 beds.

These days the UK hostels offer family or private rooms as well as dorms. When I'm with my daughter we often share a two bed room.

(I get more holiday than my PhD daughter, so to meet up at Christmas, Easter and another weekend away this year, we stayed in hostels, nearer to her than me. She couldn't get down to meet me on Christmas Eve before Christmas transport shut down, and I have my limits of how often I will sleep on her student residence floor.)

And I had to share a room one year in student residences when I was a student, otherwise it was single rooms. My daughter's residences have mostly been a single room in a shared flat, with either shared bathrooms or en suite shower room, always with a communal kitchen / living room. The flats have varied from 6 bedrooms to 8 bedrooms.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I cannot sleep when in a room with other people.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Summer Camp anyone? Usually up to 10 people in a crappy little cabin with a kybo (outhouse) down a trail. A Canadian thing perhaps. Many Anglican dioceses own lake front property run camps all summer, for all ages. I was a counsellor as a young person for 7 summers, and a camp director for 3 in my rather unending university educational career. Strangers thrown together to eat, sleep, and do outdoor activities together, and put food on the ends of sticks and hold them in the fire, and sing many songs. Nothing like a two hole outhouse for deep religious conversations. I have often wondered about Jesus and the disciples. Did they 'take their ease' together. I only recall one biblical episode and one instruction related to such matters.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
no prophet's flag is set so...: Summer Camp anyone?

Plenty.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
None of you ever stayed in youth hostels? The basic drill is a building of some sort with bunk beds, where you end up in a room with 2 or 3 others, sometimes up to 6 others.

Sure - I've stayed in youth hostels, and I've camped in groups, and gone on school trips and the like.

And it basically sucks.

I stayed in a youth hostel because it was cheap, I didn't have much money, and it was a place to stay, that allowed me to travel cheaply. It's something I could tolerate for a week or two, when I wasn't doing anything particularly demanding.

Once I could afford a room of my own, that's what I got.

And yes, I could wear earplugs and an eyemask, but those things are uncomfortable. Walls are much more comfortable, because I don't need to wear them.

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
In practice, it isn't random, and a great deal of effort goes into trying to make it less sucky.

IME, people change a lot when they leave home. Some people who used to be early birds become night owls when they discover the possibilities offered by the late night social scene. People who didn't use to be early birds take up some kind of early morning sporting activity, and have larkness forced upon them. People who don't drink try a drink, and decide they like it.

Maybe there's a rare person somewhere who becomes quieter when they go away to university, but it's probably unlikely.

So I'd question how well an 18-year-old school leaver is able to describe the kind of lifestyle that he expects to live in six months time.

And really, why would I want to bother? If I'm going away to college and learning to live on my own, and I'm studying things that are significantly more taxing than anything I've done at school, why would I want to burden myself with the additional stress of dealing with someone else in my living space?

Shared kitchens, shared bathrooms, common recreation areas - those things I get. Shared bedrooms, not so much.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Also Guide camps with either a tent for the leaders or room in a cabin for the leaders. The girls get to share four to a tent or four or six to a cabin room. If the narrow boat hadn't broken, same deal, adult leaders in one cabin, girls six to a cabin.

(Adults are not allowed to share the same room or tent with the children under safeguarding guidelines. Young leaders also get to share rooms or tents separately.)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have often wondered about Jesus and the disciples. Did they 'take their ease' together.

I expect so. It was certainly common Roman practice.

The idea of showering with a bunch of friends or strangers, or shitting with them, doesn't bother me. Sleeping does.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I suppose the advantage I have from the education I've received is that I now know enough to know that anyone who chooses to use a word like that is a kackhound,

You don't know what "intersectionalities" means, but you're sure one who uses it is a "kackhound"? I suppose this attitude could be a result of your education, but it's not obvious to me how it's an advantage.

As it happens, a Google search is helpful on "intersectionalities", but not on "kackhound" - does it have any interesting connotations relevant to this application, or are you just using it as a general term of abuse?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I always thought it was just a straight up finance thing- a single is a luxury to be exploited.

I'm surprised that market forces haven't changed that. When I was applying for university places, single accommodation was typical, but some places had a mix of singles and shared rooms, and "couldn't guarantee that you would be allocated a single room if you wanted one."

So I didn't apply to any of those places.

Land prices in most of the US are much lower than most of the UK; it can't be more expensive for US universities to offer single rooms than UK ones. Here's an article talking about how there's apparently more demand for single rooms in US universities now. It's full of quotes from people who want to be forced to share a bedroom with a random stranger. It's also a bit odd that the single room on offer is a double room with one bed, rather than a smaller room.

(It can't just be a price thing. A friend's daughter has just gone off to college, and my friend has spent all summer dealing with communications from the daughter's prospective roommate's mother, along the lines of "I'm buying so-and-so this expensive monogrammed bathrobe and set of towels. Would you like to buy your daughter the same thing so that they match?" These people could afford a single - they just don't want one. I find that strange.

As mentioned above, it's just the default. I didn't really realize it was different elsewhere. I had a roommate throughout college, my older kids had roommates, etc. As mentioned, there are usually other options available for junior and seniors, but fresh and sophmores are expected to live in dorms, and all dorms are set up with a default of at least 2 per room. Usually other spaces are available for study (library) or entertainment (student lounge) when schedules don't mesh, but that doesn't solve all the problems obviously.

In terms of market forces-- more and more of our undergrads are first-generation college students, coming here on a shoestring, and accumulating massive quantities of debt, so even a small bump in costs is out of the question. The real game-changer has been more of our students living at home and commuting. The admin at the univ where I teach are bummed by this and trying to find ways (often fighting ingrained family-oriented cultures) to induce them to live on campus (and raising more and more $$ to build more and more dorms), but I tend to think it's a good thing, and a sensible way to keep costs/debt down.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As mentioned above, it's just the default.

Fair enough. (My experience with the US has been to be surprised at how many people in the "land of the free" feel obliged to do the default thing without questioning it.)

quote:

coming here on a shoestring, [..] even a small bump in costs is out of the question.

Sure - but there are also plenty of students for whom a 10-20% bump in room rent would be manageable.

quote:
The real game-changer has been more of our students living at home and commuting. The admin at the univ where I teach are bummed by this [..]

That kind of thing gets me angry very quickly. 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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As mentioned above, it's just the default.
Fair enough. (My experience with the US has been to be surprised at how many people in the "land of the free" feel obliged to do the default thing without questioning it.)

quote:

coming here on a shoestring, [..] even a small bump in costs is out of the question.
Sure - but there are also plenty of students for whom a 10-20% bump in room rent would be manageable.

quote:
The real game-changer has been more of our students living at home and commuting. The admin at the univ where I teach are bummed by this [..]
That kind of thing gets me angry very quickly. 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.

LC, I don't get it. You sound almost angry that people would choose to go into this sort of housing. Not that they are forced--most places offer a choice, if you can swing the cost--but that they do it at all. Why?

In case it's a translation thing, "bummed out" means "made mildly unhappy"--not "enraged" or "irate." There is a real difference in the atmosphere between a university where most students are residential and one where most commute. For one thing, there is often much less of a social connection among students--they come to class and then go home to do everything else, including socializing. It's natural for university staff to miss the old "feel" of a school, regardless of which direction the change comes in.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

There's quite a lot of evidence for better academic and social outcomes among students who live on campus. Retention and graduation rates are also higher. The underlying factor is their level of involvement - students living in residence on campus have more time and opportunities to be engaged on campus - whether it's clubs, office hours, social events, workshops, lectures, museums, performing arts, sports teams, study groups - than commuting students. It's not just about proximity and convenience - students also report more of a sense of belonging to a community or being a part of the institution. And if it costs more than living in a basement, commuting 3 hours every day and eating ramen every night, I think it's worth spending the extra bucks to be able to suck up as many opportunities and experiences as possible in those four years.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
LC, I don't get it. You sound almost angry that people would choose to go into this sort of housing.

No, not at all. As it happens, I think living in university accommodation is a good idea. I agree with most of the things that Soror Magna mentioned, which is why I made the choices I made when I was a student.

But I do not agree with any attempt to put pressure on people to make that choice, and I rather had the impression from cliffdweller's post that her university wished to pressure people to live in. It's people trying to pressure others into making a certain choice "for their own good" that makes me angry.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
The real game-changer has been more of our students living at home and commuting. The admin at the univ where I teach are bummed by this [..]
That kind of thing gets me angry very quickly. 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.

To be fair, they are not required to live on campus-- and they don't, hence the bumming of the admin. And the admin in question (who shall remain nameless-- i.e. my boss) was rightly concerned because residential students tend to report much higher student satisfaction than commuters (as detailed above). But my response was similar to yours (i.e. "instead of spending $X million on a new dorm then trying to entice them to borrow more $$ to live there, how about we spend a much smaller amount of $$ trying to improve the commuter experience?"). It also occurs to me that the commuter satisfaction might be lower simply because school plays a smaller role in their lives-- i.e. school is good but just one small aspect of many others (social, family, work, and church life) whereas for residential students it tends to become all those things. So commuters are having a good experience-- it's just somewhere else.

[ 27. September 2015, 04:00: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

But I do not agree with any attempt to put pressure on people to make that choice, and I rather had the impression from cliffdweller's post that her university wished to pressure people to live in. It's people trying to pressure others into making a certain choice "for their own good" that makes me angry.

My sons both spent a lot of time at university and colleges of one sort or another, in various parts of the country. Both came home for their Masters year as it was cheaper. Both enjoyed being in halls for the first year and then shared houses.

I think it does them good to get away from home. It did me - I had no idea just how much my Mum did for me 'till I moved out at 18!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I agree. it does you a huge amount of good to get away from home when you're 18. I knew a chap who went to university in his home town, simply because it had just about the best department in the country for what he wanted to do. He behaved exactly as if he had come from soemwhere 200 miles away: gave up playing football for his town team and played for the university, drank in different pubs, went home for a meal or the weekend from tiem to time of course,but no more than anyone else would have done, and so on. He said it worked very well.
The other thing I discovered when I went to university was that my mother missed having me around. That did surprise me.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Going away for college at 17 was certainly a good experience for me, as it was for my two older kids (one's still at home). But when it means adding an additional $10K annually to your student debt, it might be a luxury. And it also occurs to me that it's a particular cultural value-- one that fits well with white middle-and-upper class values. Most of our students who resist moving on campus come from other cultures that have a much stronger emphasis on family, living at home, spending time with family, is part of that cultural norm. Yes, they continue to experience the benefits of having a parent who does things like cook meals or throw in a load of laundry, but usually they have other responsibilities as well-- picking up younger siblings from school, caring for elderly grandparents, etc. I find these students, while less connected to the college, but are more connected to their communities. While there may seem to be something "missing" from their college experience, I wonder if they might do better post-college, having spent the last 4+ years building a full and balanced life of family, work, and church rather than living in a collegiate cocoon. There are lots of ways of living in the world, including lots of ways of getting an education.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I am realizing a big factor. Are some parents close to their children to the pointvof no privacy. What the family therapists label "enmeshed"? The concept as I understand is that the child wheel turns at all and parent's wheel cogs are so closely entwined it necessarily turns as well, and feels every little bump and jar.

Sounds like perhaps some parents need to let kids run the clutch (disengage their wheel).

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...Most of our students who resist moving on campus come from other cultures that have a much stronger emphasis on family, living at home, spending time with family, is part of that cultural norm. Yes, they continue to experience the benefits of having a parent who does things like cook meals or throw in a load of laundry, but usually they have other responsibilities as well-- picking up younger siblings from school, caring for elderly grandparents, etc. I find these students, while less connected to the college, but are more connected to their communities. While there may seem to be something "missing" from their college experience, I wonder if they might do better post-college, having spent the last 4+ years building a full and balanced life of family, work, and church rather than living in a collegiate cocoon. There are lots of ways of living in the world, including lots of ways of getting an education.

I used to teach quite a few students like that here in South Wales. I think it would have done them a world of good to get away from that background for a bit- especially if they were, as most of them were, female. Often they were just too plugged into the taken for grantedness of a certain type of South Walian working class culture, with its rather narrow horizons, a lack of confidence anywhere out of reach, perhaps sight, of their mam, and a heap of assumptions that it would be the daughter's / sister's duty to drop everything, including bits of university study, and help out if required. My boss- who was I think originally from a background not too dissimilar to them- used to say that what we had to do with a lot of them was to get their heads off the estates. We managed to do that with quite a lot of them and those often turned out pretty well. But they often found it hard work getting there.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
LC, I don't get it. You sound almost angry that people would choose to go into this sort of housing.
No, not at all. As it happens, I think living in university accommodation is a good idea. I agree with most of the things that Soror Magna mentioned, which is why I made the choices I made when I was a student.

But I do not agree with any attempt to put pressure on people to make that choice, and I rather had the impression from cliffdweller's post that her university wished to pressure people to live in. It's people trying to pressure others into making a certain choice "for their own good" that makes me angry.

I got the same impression of indignance, and I also got no sense in cliffdweller's use of the word " bummed" that anyone was coercing anything-- in fact, " bummed" implies a sort of resignation.

I finished my education by commuting to a local university, and I was not petitioned or punished in any way in relation to campus accomodations. It is simply a box you check on a form. In fact, the school devoted much of the campus parking to the exclusive use of commuter students-- to the loud complaints of the dorm students.

The only coercion that happens is an attractive price and a parent on a limited budget.

[ 27. September 2015, 16:30: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

There is very limited on-campus accommodation in many Canadian universities, and fraternities/sororities are frequently illegal under provincial university acts. There are usually no affiliated or federated college housing either. The usual is to find people to share accommodation with, off campus. Strangers or linked via third or fourth hand people.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

That is becoming very popular around here (I live not far from UCSF-- craigslist ads are often aimed directly at university students)

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

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

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I've always been surprised at the general lack of care for on campus students. Kids go from being completely under their parents control to almost total independence in such a short time.

When I was in college in the mid 1965 age 17, the dorms were not co-ed and safer than now but even so no one really paid much attention to us. My parents thought that since they had paid for tuition, room and board, they could send me off without a penny and all would be fine. Running out of pens or soap was a bit of a crises. Then the second semester started and they paid the tuition part forgetting about "board." So I just went without food except for the random offerings of my roommate. Fortunately my brain, always a bit day dreamy quit working altogether so I flunked out mid-term saving me from starving to death, but I did go home weighing about 97 pounds.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

So much depends on how the parents raise you. When I was twelve I was already babysitting my younger siblings, making them dinner, doing laundry, and basically any and all household chores. My son is 14 and can do laundry, cook and clean, and handle a grocery store trip or a visit to a restaurant without parental supervision. We started him out young (paying for stuff in restaurants at age 7--funny watching the cashiers look OVER his head as he stood in line!) and he developed a lot of knowledge and self-confidence. I expect he'll handle college just fine, though I plan to be available of course if he needs me.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
...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

I think that having these shared spaces is importnat. Where I taught most recently we had, of course, a library (of sorts), a couple of coffee shjops, and a gym. But a lot of my students came in for classes and then went, and I'm afraid that the courses that I taught on were even arranged to support that model, with lots of etcahign crammed into two or three days a week. This was I think supposed to be supportive of stiudents who had family responsibilities or part-time work, especially work related to what they were studying, but it did rather engender a part-time culture among many supposedly full-time students: you would hear full-time students say that they didn't want a tutorial or a supervision on such and such a day because 'that's not one of the days I'm in college'. Eh? You're supposed to be full-time, and the council is certainly funding you as a full-time student

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

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

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

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.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

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.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

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.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

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]

)

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.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

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'...

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :

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.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

But the age of 'responsibility' has always shifted. There was a time when the bar mitzvah really did mark your passage into adulthood.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

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.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

No, that's not discretion: that is as you say an institution playing safe and covering their back.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Yes, a great deal of this is driven by insurance issues. Ass coverage rules.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

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.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

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]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

At my kids' universities, ID cards for under-18s have "under 18" in bold red writing.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Kid Independence as Cultural

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Kid Independence as Cultural

That is how things were when I was a child, England in the 1950s.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

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.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I was interested enough to look up that article: Link.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

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.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

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.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

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 ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

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.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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]

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 ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

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.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

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.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

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]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

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.

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Oh yes, I agree.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0