Thread: Helicopter parents 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=024524
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I saw a story on Huffington Post stating that a young woman who is a senior at the University of Cincinnati has obtained a restraining order against her parents, who were intruding into every detail of her life. They in turn claim she has mental problems (despite being on the dean's list) and they now demand back all the money they have invested in her college education. She is an only child. The court and the school have sided decisively with the student (who is, after all, old enough to drink, drive, marry, enlist, sign binding contracts, etc.).
While this sounds to me like an unusually dysfunctional family, I don't think the helicopter parent phenomenon is at all unusual. In my own teaching, I have encountered one or two such. I also tend to side with the student. I can see plenty of grief in her life deriving from her parents' interference; for instance, I can't imagine a man marrying into such a family.
Is this mostly an American phenomenon? Are there countries in which the parents' behavior would be considered normal or expected? Are there better and worse ways to handle it?
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
While this sounds to me like an unusually dysfunctional family, I don't think the helicopter parent phenomenon is at all unusual. In my own teaching, I have encountered one or two such. I also tend to side with the student.
Well, in the US, the parents are going into debt up to their eyeballs to pay your salary. If you want the student to be treated as an adult by the parents, lower your damned rates so the parents aren't indentured to your institution for the rest of their lives.
Frankly, I find the arrogance of colleges insulting. The only thing they want from the parents is an endless supply of money with no accountability. If you can see anything "adult" about that, you are as immature as your students. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
Wow, Tom! I didn't see the OP heading in that direction at all!
However, HCH, I would observe that the only thing "new" about helicopter parents is the term. After all, it wasn't that many centuries ago that parents were arranging their children's marriages. And, if I understand correctly, in some cultures today that is still not unheard of. While you did not give details as to how the parents in the case you mention were "intruding into every detail" of their daughter's life, I would think that "choosing spouse" would have to trump it. In short, culture plays a big part in this. And, considering the wide variety of cultures represented in the US, it would be interesting to know the cultural background of the participants in your story.
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
They in turn claim she has mental problems (despite being on the dean's list) and they now demand back all the money they have invested in her college education.
I'd hate to be their lawyer trying to make that argument. Unless there are some undisclosed facts, I don't see any connection between "our daughter is crazy" and "give back the money we paid you."
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I believe that in fact most American college students are not solely funded by their parents. Many of them are paying for their educations with loans that may haunt them for many years. (That is a topic for some other thread.)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
We have paid our son's (massive) college fees and would do so over again! I see no problem there.
But - you pay the money then let it GO. It is no longer your cash. My MIL would give presents then, years after, ask about them. Nope - a gift is a gift full stop.
I had to google 'helicopter parents' but recognised them immediately. You get a couple in every class - and they start their hovering from the Nursery class onwards!
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I believe that in fact most American college students are not solely funded by their parents. Many of them are paying for their educations with loans that may haunt them for many years. (That is a topic for some other thread.)
First, it is not a topic for another thread -- it is a major motivation for parents to make sure that they are not impoverishing themselves without getting any value in return. And, AFAIK, not many children are able to borrow $140-200 K without at least a parental co-sign, and not very many parents have the credit for that without putting their house up for collateral.
I know an awful lot of parents who were put in that vice, and more than a few have had to delay their retirement to pay off the absurd tuition for a child with a history degree and no visible means of support. The amazing thing is not the occasional helicopter parent, but the vast number of parents who place their retirement in jeopardy without injecting themselves into every detail of their children's education.
--Tom Clune
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I believe that in fact most American college students are not solely funded by their parents. Many of them are paying for their educations with loans that may haunt them for many years. (That is a topic for some other thread.)
Both. I teach at a private American univ. While our tuition is lower than many, it's still unsupportable. Our students generally fund their education though a toxic combination of maxing out parental savings, maxing out parental loans (including 2nd or 3rd mortgages on a home which may be underwater), working 20-40 hrs/week while maintaining a full load of classes, and maxing out student loans that yes, will haunt them (even as their parent's loans jeopardize their retirement).
It's unsustainable. No one knows that more than faculty, who are watching out students struggle with this witch's brew every day. But because faculty salaries are not a large component of the rise in costs (and adjunct salaries are barely minimum wage) there's not a lot we can do about it.
Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
the helicopter parent phenomenon
What a stupid expression! Who coined that one? Why is it that the media have to coin these stupid expressions to communicate simple ideas? America seems to be the source of more than their share of these, but the British press tries its best too.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I believe the term "helicopter parents" refers to parents who hover over their children.
A response to Tom Clune: I think there are more topics for discussion here than must the cost of a college education. I think you can find examples of parents who hover over their children's careers, marriages, purchase of a house or a car, decisions about vacation trips, housekeeping, the raising of the grandchildren, etc.
I keep expecting some ship mate to mention "Honor they father and mother". I think that could lead to some juicy comments.
Posted by nickel (# 8363) on
:
I think the term "helicopter parenting" refers to situations in which mom or dad go way beyond a normal caring concern for the child and family resources. I can (and am!) concerned about my daughter's job prospects as she leaves her college this year, but I recognize it's her life to live. She's a smart kid and I'm not worried in the long run, but being 30 years older than her I see very clearly that she's simply inexperienced in so many things. It's tough sometimes holding my tongue, but she's got to make her own mistakes, big and little. I think helicopter parents aren't willing to let their offspring make even a "little" mis-step. Not healthy for the kid involved.
Cultures in which marriages are arranged might still allow the persons to find their own way ahead in the marriage - so I don't call that helicoptering, necessarily.
My guess is that 'true' helicoptering isn't an American or a recent phenomena; rather it's an extreme on a continuum of parental concern and involvement from "way too much" to "way too little" that occurs everywhere. But that's just a guess, I am interested to see what others have to say.
Is helicoptering -- controlling out of an overabundance of love and caution -- the same as controlling your child's for selfish reasons? (I'm thinking of daughters who were expected to remain in the household to take care of aging parents.)
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
But because faculty salaries are not a large component of the rise in costs
What's driving costs in the US, then? I lecture in the UK, where staff costs are a very large proportion of our budget. A large-ish (and often quite senior) non-academic management structure has arisen to keep the wheels on a massive increase in centralised admin and procedure, but even that is getting knocked back in current rounds of redundancy.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
A response to Tom Clune: I think there are more topics for discussion here than must the cost of a college education. I think you can find examples of parents who hover over their children's careers, marriages, purchase of a house or a car, decisions about vacation trips, housekeeping, the raising of the grandchildren, etc.
I have heard of parents showing up at their offspring's job interviews. I would think that would completely kill the offspring's chance of getting the job.
Moo
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
I think competition is part of it. As noted, kids are inexperienced and vulnerable to any number of comparatively innocent mistakes. Parents realize that their future lives depend in part on the success of their children, and so they seek to minimize this risk. I suppose reasonable that there's a certain fine line between non-involvement and over-involvement that's ideal, but some parents probably use helicopter parenting as a way to try to relieve some of that anxiety.
Arranged marriages are part of this (again, parents trying to provide security for their offspring) and I think different cultures have different amounts of arrangement that are deemed acceptable, but it's the same drive, especially (I imagine) for the bride's family in a patriarchal society.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
I think parents are entitled to do a certain amount of "hovering" over their college-age child if they are footing a significant part of the bill for that college education. No, not to the point of intruding into every aspect of a 21-year-old's life, but certainly to the point of being aware of how they're spending their time, what their grades are, and whether there's any likelihood of my significant financial investment (which is what I think it is, rather than a gift that you should "give and let go,") is likely to result in a college degree.
Of course, my kids are not yet college aged so I don't really know. But my parents paid for most of my college education and I certainly considered myself accountable to them throughout those years in return for that financial support. If you want complete independence from your parents, then you'd better be self-supporting.
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on
:
The parents in this case installed monitoring software on the daughter's computer and phone. I'd have cut off all communication as well as filed a restraining order if my parents had done that. They also required her to keep her skype connected to them every minute she was in her dorm room. They even watched her all night long! They've accused her of mental illness without evidence and promiscuity. (How she could possibly have a relationship of any kind under the circumstances. These parents went WAY over the line. The judge agreed and the university also gave the daughter a full ride for her senior year.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I know an awful lot of parents who were put in that vice, and more than a few have had to delay their retirement to pay off the absurd tuition for a child with a history degree and no visible means of support.
--Tom Clune
This is as much the parent's fault as the child's.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Arranged marriages are part of this (again, parents trying to provide security for their offspring) and I think different cultures have different amounts of arrangement that are deemed acceptable, but it's the same drive, especially (I imagine) for the bride's family in a patriarchal society.
Depends on the culture and the parents, but in many it is the parent's security being purchased by the marriage(and/or education) of the offspring.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
But because faculty salaries are not a large component of the rise in costs
What's driving costs in the US, then?
Fresh Air did a story on that a few months back.
Turns out there are fewer professors, more administrators, and more buildings. Lots more buildings. And semi-pro sports programs.
And there is far less government support for higher education than there used to be. It used to be that state universities were largely funded by the state. Student tuition paid only a small portion of the cost. That's not true any more.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
Maybe the girl had given her parents cause to be concerned for her welfare. When my son was 16 we would send him off to college each day with lunch etc (he was living at home), paid his fees, looked after his needs, only to find after 6 months that he had not attended one class in that time, but had squandered everything on drugs.He had been stealing from us and generally doing the wrong thing. We became very cautious with our daughters after this experience. It is difficult to know fully what goes on in other people's lives and any comments should only be made based on full knowledge of the circumstances.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I think maybe we've got another word confusion thing going on here--the girl in the OP is at university (often called "college" in the States), not late high school (which I gather is called "college" in some places?). She is in her twenties already.
If her parents really thought her mentally ill, and seriously enough to keep a constant electronic leash on her, they really should have had her committed for treatment. A situation grave enough to require 24 hour surveillance is probably one where they could easily produce enough evidence to satisfy a judge. At the very least, they shouldn't have aided her financially to attend university so far from the help/monitoring of home. It does sound like it's the parents who have the problem to me.
Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on
:
"Helicopter parents" is a media snarl-word designed to intrude in the relationship between parents and their children.
It suggests that there is some pseudo-statistical degree of "parental involvement" that counts as "normal", and the parents in question are violating that.
Human relationships are tough, and highly subjective. Parenting is toughest. Every child thinks their parents are "helicopter parents" when things aren't going well.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
Parental involvement in schools is good, but taking it to the point that it exasperates their children's teachers and obstructs them from doing their job is not.
I've also heard helicopter parenting defined as driving their little fatty boombah kids to school regularly even when their age is in double digits and there are adequate school buses, public transport or the distance is less than 3 kilometres.
I know of secondary school teachers who have had to change their home or mobile phone numbers (even those which were already unlisted) thanks to helicopter parents chasing them to argue over grades. There's unlimited potential for disaster if these parents manage to wangle their way onto the board/council of a school, which is why when I graduate there's no way I'll be taking a job at a parent-controlled Christian school.
I have a distant relative whose wife is a classic helicopter parent (and also has other mental health issues), she would tell her daughters that they were only allowed to play in a certain area of the yard near the boundary fence at lunch so she could stand outside and watch them. The only way to stop this (and the constant bullying, both active and passive, resulting from it) was for the student counsellor to ask a friend to drive past and call the police about a suspicious person hanging around the school fence watching kids at break times.
As for the case in the OP, IMNSHO the judge and the university got it right.
A note about contributions from Australian shipmates - "college" generally means a private school which has both primary and secondary years. It used to also mean that there were residential boarding facilities attached, but it doesn't have that meaning attached these days and there are many private schools referred to as XYZ College which don't have any history of residential boarding at all.
I do understand the US use of "college" as informally referring to undergraduate studies at an institution which may be a university (depending on your understanding of "university," for me that requires both teaching and research). Instead of saying a kid has graduated from school and gone to college, in Australia we would say they had graduated and gone to uni even if they've gone to some other tertiary education institution that is not a university.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Oh where to start? Parents unwilling to give up their role, parents living vicariously through their children, parents as control freaks, parents unable to accept their own ageing, grownups enslaved to the father of lies’ ideal that money = happiness = success, parents unwilling to understand gift and even more unwilling to understand that if it is not a gift then there has to be a mutually understood and agreed contract. And for balance, yes there are blood sucking layabout entitled young people too, screw them also. And education establishments as revenue streams ..... by St Stephens stoned balls Im glad I’m an old fart.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
"Helicopter parents" is a media snarl-word designed to intrude in the relationship between parents and their children.
Thank you for that. It's natural for parents to want to protect their children and it's natural for young people in their teens/early twenties to feel smothered by it all. That's long been the incentive for them to get their education and move out. They aren't really meant to have it both ways, independent lifestyle and financial support.
Speaking from personal experience, all of my parental regrets, and I have quite a list, center around not hovering enough rather than otherwise.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
But because faculty salaries are not a large component of the rise in costs
What's driving costs in the US, then?
Fresh Air did a story on that a few months back.
Turns out there are fewer professors, more administrators, and more buildings. Lots more buildings. And semi-pro sports programs.
And there is far less government support for higher education than there used to be. It used to be that state universities were largely funded by the state. Student tuition paid only a small portion of the cost. That's not true any more.
I think as well that in the US, education costs have risen for similar reasons that health care costs have. Both are immune to market forces, yet a large segment of our country believes in the invisible "market forces" that will bring every commodity in line.
With many commodities, of course, that works. If beef becomes too expensive, at a certain point, people will just start eating more pork or poultry. But that doesn't work for health care-- no matter how much cost rise, no one is going to say "sorry, too expensive" to their child's life-saving treatment-- they will move heaven and earth and literally mortgage away their future to pay for it.
Really the same is true with higher ed. While there are a few voices that are questioning "is college ed. really worth it?" there aren't many, because, even at these ridiculously inflated prices, the answer is yes. Now more than ever, it demonstrably increases one's chances of finding employment, and increases compensation. So no parent is going to deny their child that advantage-- even when, again, it means literally mortgaging away your future. In fact, we're seeing far greater enrollment, including from "first college student in family" demographic, as unemployment rises.
So prices rise in both cases to a large degree because they can. Because there aren't, and never will be, the sorts of market pressures that would bring them down. Because of the type of commodity they are, because they aren't subject to those market forces, the only way to bring costs in line is some sort of government involvement.
In the past when there was heavy govt funding for state univ., that provided a market check. Private univ. like the one I teach at had to compete with these heavily subsidized univ., so they had to do everything they could to keep costs in line, to raise $$ for financial aid, and to provide some sort of "value added" to justify the additional tuition. Now that those govt subsidies are withering, the costs disparity is not as great, there's less pressure to keep costs down. Add to that the overcrowding of the state system, which means taking 6-8 years to complete your program (and begin earning) and a mere 4 yrs of private tuition starts to look like a better bargain.
[ 29. December 2012, 15:32: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
tclune: quote:
it is a major motivation for parents to make sure that they are not impoverishing themselves without getting any value in return.
What sort of return would you expect?
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
tclune: quote:
it is a major motivation for parents to make sure that they are not impoverishing themselves without getting any value in return.
What sort of return would you expect?
That my student is studying with the diligence that $40-50K/yr expenditure on my part deserves, and has given proper consideration to what s/he is studying for. This whole thing is way too expensive to be treated with the usual casual disregard of adolescents, and I would expect any decent college to understand that and act in concert with the parents' reasonable best interests for the student.
In reality, the only college that I ever encountered that showed any understanding of the real-world issues was Clark University in Worcester -- a truly wonderful institution. By far the most common attitude of schools is that parents are complete pains in the ass who should be contacted continuously for fund-raising and never for any other purpose. The school's interest in supporting the student directly is fully as indifferent in general as is its approach to the student's parents. There is extremely little to recommend most institutions of higher learning AFAICS.
--Tom Clune
[ 29. December 2012, 16:14: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
Just to throw one more thing into the mix: It used to be (50 years ago) that universities and (US) colleges acted in loco parentis toward their students. "Parietal" rules (which were supposed to govern the behavior of students "within the walls" of the school) were quite strict.
This changed many years ago in US society. Young people, ages 18-22, away from home for the first time in many cases, are tossed into a free-for-all. Some universities may still require freshman students to live in dorms, but even there, there are few rules and even less enforcement. Many students live entirely on their own, with a half-dozen possibly responsible roommates floating in and out and no structure at all. The hookup culture and the binge-drinking culture claim them, and the result is personal disaster. I've heard too many stories about all of this out of former students of mine not to grieve for it myself.
So I wonder whether "helicopter parenting" is not simply a natural reaction on the part of some parents? There seems to be no other social institution (except the military) willing to set limits and boundaries for young adults under its care, yet young adults need boundaries, because they are still developing their own internalized senses of what is right and fitting to do.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Thanks Josephine, Cliffdweller.
quote:
Really the same is true with higher ed. While there are a few voices that are questioning "is college ed. really worth it?" there aren't many, because, even at these ridiculously inflated prices, the answer is yes.
We see a few (2 or 3 a year?) US students in my area - I suppose we can compete on cost. But why anyone comes on my taught MSc when (mostly) equivalent courses _taught in English_ are available to EU entrants TUITION-FREE in Sweden, is a total mystery to me. Send your kids to Sweden, folks.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
My mother attempted to helicopter when I went to University mostly, I think, because she hadn't been herself and didn't really understand it. She kept worrying that I would be chucked out for wearing jeans, and bought me dry-clean only skirts to wear to lectures. Plus she worried about me drinking coffee. And owning a cheque book; she didn't have a cheque book herself, and wasn't convinced it was safe for me to have one.
She used to regularly tell me that she couldn't sleep for worrying about me, and that I was making her ill with worry. Fortunately my University was 100 miles away from my home, so there was a limit to how much she could hover, but it was still a major pain.
It didn't stop; she went through the same you-are-making-me-ill-with-worry routine when I got married at the "too young" age of 24, and again when I had my children.
In fairness to Mum, I think she found my world bewildering. Although we grew up in the same area geographically, Mum was 13 before her home got a inside toilet which flushed, and into her late 20s before electricity reached the bit of Scotland she was in. I have a photo on my desk of my mother as a child standing beside the outside pump where they got their water, just to remind me how different the experiences of two generations can be.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
tclune: quote:
it is a major motivation for parents to make sure that they are not impoverishing themselves without getting any value in return.
What sort of return would you expect?
That my student is studying with the diligence that $40-50K/yr expenditure on my part deserves, and has given proper consideration to what s/he is studying for. This whole thing is way too expensive to be treated with the usual casual disregard of adolescents, and I would expect any decent college to understand that and act in concert with the parents' reasonable best interests for the student.
As both a parent and a prof., I would agree that it makes sense to expect our offspring to appreciate the financial sacrifice and honor that by giving their studies their full attention. Unfortunately, that doesn't coincide well with the normal developmental age characteristics of 18-20 year olds. Part of separating is experimenting with breaking the rules-- partying, staying out too late, etc. Figuring out how counter-productive that is (and why parents forbid it when they have more control) is most often a learn-from-you-mistakes process. But, yes, far easier to be philosophical about that when you haven't invested $20K ore more.
Back in the days when community colleges were an inexpensive and viable option, it made sense to have that halfway step for these newly adults to begin making those steps w/o the financial investment. Unfortunately, in many places they have been so shredded they only make things worse-- if you can only get into one class a semester, that leaves a whole lotta time for partying w/o learning the necessary discipline. Given that, I've become enamored with the cross-pond tradition of a gap year, would like to see that take off here.
In terms of the univ. "acting in concert" with parental reasonable requests, I'm not sure what you have in mind there. We are laboring under federal privacy laws here that restrict our ability to reveal pretty much anything to parents about grades, residential life, etc. This last semester I had a student where I had significant mental health concerns. I was able to work with univ. counseling center to provide some much-needed intervention, but was not able to contact the parents and let them know-- even though, as a parent, it is something I would want to know in similar circumstances.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I find the whole "protecting your investment" idea to be a bizarre one. Not least because the surefire way of making sure your offspring's degree is useless is to infantilise them and stop them developing the capacity to make and fix mistakes on their own. Universities are fairly forgiving places when it comes to screwing things up, far more so than workplaces. It's far better that your kids screw up at uni where they can put it right as opposed to doing something foolish in the workplace that can wreck their career.
For the record my parents had the good sense not to interfere with my life at university. This may or may not have been made easier by the fact that they didn't have to pay for it (I was among the last to get their degree without paying any fees at all and my living expenses were covered by a loan). Despite their hands off attitude I managed to get through university without ever having got drunk or sleeping with anyone who wasn't my wife (having got married at the end of my 2nd year).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I find the whole "protecting your investment" idea to be a bizarre one. Not least because the surefire way of making sure your offspring's degree is useless is to infantilise them and stop them developing the capacity to make and fix mistakes on their own. Universities are fairly forgiving places when it comes to screwing things up, far more so than workplaces. It's far better that your kids screw up at uni where they can put it right as opposed to doing something foolish in the workplace that can wreck their career
All very true, but it's hard at the same time not to be sympathetic when parents have literally mortgaged the family home to put them there.
This has become particularly acute to me in the last few years, when I've found the demographic of my students dramatically changing. We have moved from a school almost exclusively made up of fairly privileged suburban students to predominantly lower income, inner city youth. Most are the first in their family to go to college. Their families really have put it all on the line-- they are "all in". In the past, my students would have the luxury of a semester or even two of screw ups. Their parents would be annoyed, no doubt, but they would read them the riot act, they'd go on academic probation for a semester or two, get their act together, and move on.
The students I have now can't do that. They are stretched to the max, living paycheck to paycheck-- or rather, student loan check to student loan check. If they screw up a semester, it's game over-- with significant consequences not only for their future, but for their entire family's.
At the same time, many of my students are less prepared for college and have a steeper learning curve than those I've had in the past, making the possibility of a "lost semester" all the more likely. Even more scary is the fact that they often aren't aware of all this until it's too late.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Maybe this is just because I'm youngish, maybe it's because it hasn't been that long since I was looking at a career in academia, maybe it's just because I still read College Misery regularly, but helicopter parenting does happen, it sucks festering monkey balls for the instructors who have to deal with it, and it's rarely productive for any party involved. Seriously, what incentive do you have to actually try at your classes when you know mommy and daddy will be there to threaten lawsuits and argue with the adjunct or grad student teacher's department chair or dean when Little Sally or Sammy Snowflake gets busted for copying their essay from the Internet? You can have slam-dunk proof of plagiarism, slackitude, or just general incompetence, but an arguing parent means the kid gets their B+. A generation or two ago, people 18 to 22—or younger!—were generally getting married and having kids, and nobody thought they were too young for that; now, the Precious Widdle Snowflakes just can't be allowed to face down the consequences of their idiocy, now can they?
Yes, college in the US is freakishly expensive, and is only getting more so. Trust us, none of that new money is going to pay for instructors. When your rankings are dependent on how many top-flight students you can reject, you need more pampered, rich, cosseted applicants who happened to go to expensive private schools to apply; the fact that rich kids need less financial aid is also a plus. So you give them the amenities they expect—single rooms in plush dorms, gourmet catered meals, climbing walls and lazy rivers in the campus health club, and football or basketball programs that regularly send players to the NFL or NBA . . . and revive the fortunes of failing pro teams their rookie season. You pay for this, of course, not just by raising tuition, knowing full well that there are phenomenally wealthy people who can pay those rates out of pocket, but by cutting money in academic areas—library budgets are shit these days (which, for those of us who work in academic publishing and sell to libraries, is a Problem), most departments are replacing tenure-track faculty (who cost generally $55-85k/year) with adjuncts (usually $3-4k/class, or $15-18k/year), and, between government cutbacks in research grants and university "funding issues," research funding (especially in the arts, humanities, and social sciences, where it was never that plentiful to begin with) is nearing nothing.
So yes, there are some pretty serious problems in the American university system, problems that need to actually addressed rather than simply talked about—after all, the Chronicle of Higher Education seemingly runs at least three stories on this every issue! The idea that parents get to dictate what their legally adult children do with their lives, however, should border on the laughable. Rising college costs have kept it from being so, sadly.
*As a postscript, does this mean that parents get to use the "I'm buying your education, I get to say what it's in" argument to dictate the course of their child's life? My parents, for instance, weren't too happy when I dropped the biology major that was only of secondary interest to pursue philosophy; if I hadn't been on a full-ride scholarship, there might have been a tad more friction. Even now, there are still some comments about how I should really consider law school, all evidence on the job market for new lawyers in America notwithstanding. Really, do we want to give parents another way to control their offspring's lives?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:
Even now, there are still some comments about how I should really consider law school, all evidence on the job market for new lawyers in America notwithstanding.
Don't do it unless you want to. I loved history at school, but my parents wanted me to do a degree that would give me a career and I did law. I agreed with them at the time, so they didn't have to do much persuading. I knew throughout my law degree that I wanted to study history, but duly qualified as a solicitor. That took 4 years at Uni and 2 years legal traineeship. I did a history module just for the joy of it whilst working full time as a lawyer, 4 years after I qualified and I chucked my legal career completely when I had my fist baby, having started a history degree thirteen days before I gave birth (good timing!!) So 6 years of study to qualify for less than 6 years of legal career.
Long story short, I'm only doing my history PhD now, in my late 40s. I hope to submit just before my 49th birthday. I've got good genes and lots of relatives who lived into their 80s / 90s/100s so I hope, really hope, that I can start a career at 50 and still have 30 good years working life ahead of me.
But as a life plan, doing law as a safe bet, because your parents think it's a good idea sucks. It really sucks.
(No criticism here of my parents, neither of whom went to Uni, neither of whom had any lawyers or academics in their social circle, and who really cared about my future and who guided me the best they could at the time.)
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
I was a fresher nearly ten years ago (where does the time go?). I got in before the big fees increases, so only had to pay up to £1000 per year. (It was based on parental income, but it was definitely the student who was liable for it.) Loans were also in the student's name. (Today, uni fees are higher in the UK, but as far as I know they're handled by a system of loans which are still entirely in the student's name, where you pay them off when you start earning above a certain amount.)
My parents were definitely in the "Here's your first box of groceries, we'll see you in ten weeks, have fun!" camp. They were there for advice if I sought it, and I took advantage of that when I was renting a house, or deciding whether to go travelling in the summer.
I did have friends whose parents wanted to be much more involved, including one whose mother wanted her to phone every evening to say that she was OK. I think eventually she had to refuse to answer for a couple of days, to make the point that now she was an adult, she had the right not to be checked up on all the time. Standing up to your own parents is definitely a part of growing up!
The one thing that I never heard of was parents trying to contact the university directly. All the financial stuff was in the student's name, from the student loan forms and original applications all the way through to actually paying for stuff when you were there. I doubt the lecturers would have spoken to anyone but the student about any academic matters. Your grades could only be collected in person. A parent's only source of knowledge for how their offspring was getting on would be the offspring themselves.
I guess I'm sympathetic to why a parent with a vested interest might want to know how their (adult, it has to be noted) offspring was doing academically. But if they don't trust them to tell the truth about it, they shouldn't have lent/given them a bunch of money — and if you don't give someone a chance to make their own mistakes, they'll never properly grow up.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
My husband and I had the child-raising philosophy that parents have twenty years to make themselves superfluous. We did pay for their college education;however if they hadn't studied seriously we would have told them we weren't paying anymore.
We supervised them closely when they were very young and relaxed the supervision gradually as they got older. We made it clear that we expected responsible behavior.
It is impossible to control a twenty-year-old, especially from a distance. This means that you have to make sure that they can control themselves before they leave home.
Moo
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
We have seen three of our four kids go through college. While we helped were we could, we did not see the need to protect our investment as it were. We looked at what we could give them as a springboard for their future. It was up to them to make their own decisions.
However, when our second son became anorexic we did have to become more involved. He just was not making good decisions. His doctors told us we might have to declare him mentally incompetent to force him into treatment. It came close. We got him admitted into a clinic in Portland OR. About half way through the treatment program he was about to leave it. I made a hasty trip to Portland to do an intervention. I actually had the papers in hand to file with the judge if I had to. But in the end, he consented to continue treatment.
That was over five years ago. Now he is a healthy, productive young man who is married to a beautiful woman who helps keep him centered. They are now talking about having their own child.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Here is a timely article for the American side of this thread.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
I really appreciate Moo's and Gramps49's contributions here from the perspective of parents who have actually done it -- seen kids through those years -- and appear to have a very balanced view of parental involvement. To my mind the "investment" aspect would come in exactly as Moo said -- not that I would hover over them (and certainly not over the school) to make sure my investment was protected, and definitely not that I would feel I had the right to force them into a study area of my choice because I was paying, but that if I found they were completely goofing off and not passing, etc., I'd reserve the right to withdraw financial support. I do believe parents should be much more hands-off by the time kids are in university than they were in high school, but at the same time there are situations, such as Gramps49 described with his son, that do call for greater parental involvement.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
You can have slam-dunk proof of plagiarism, slackitude, or just general incompetence, but an arguing parent means the kid gets their B+.
Ouch. Whilst one's aware that grade inflation is out there, this really saddens me.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
..... by St Stephens stoned balls Im glad I’m an old fart.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
You can have slam-dunk proof of plagiarism, slackitude, or just general incompetence, but an arguing parent means the kid gets their B+.
Ouch. Whilst one's aware that grade inflation is out there, this really saddens me.
In Australia, this is an everyday issue in schools, not so much universities which couldn't really give two hoots about a student's parents if they are over 18 years old.
It's why I favour externally-administered exams for the end of year 12, because they provide a far more objective measure that is immune to outside pressures and they provide teachers with good reason to mark fairly through the year.
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on
:
The UK and US experiences are so different that it seems they can hardly be compared, so I'm not saying anything about the US system.
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
I was a fresher nearly ten years ago (where does the time go?). I got in before the big fees increases, so only had to pay up to £1000 per year. (It was based on parental income, but it was definitely the student who was liable for it.) Loans were also in the student's name. (Today, uni fees are higher in the UK, but as far as I know they're handled by a system of loans which are still entirely in the student's name, where you pay them off when you start earning above a certain amount.)
This sums up the UK position. The fees are paid by the student (usually from student loan funds, but even if from the bank of mum and dad it is still the student paying), so whatever the nature of relationship between student and parent, it will be (and should be) the student that the university deals with. Having said that, universities are well aware that parents tend to be much more involved in matters now than they were a few decades ago.
Twenty or thirty years ago prospective students would not have dreamed of taking parents with them on university open days - it would be like having your mother still walk you to school aged 18, an embarrassment not to be endured. Now it is common practice, and good universities can be expected to have tours, talks, etc on open days for parents to attend while their offspring are having interviews, their own tours of the campus etc. I know that at our local university one of the most popular events at their open days is a talk/lecture on 'how to be a parent of a university student'.
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
The one thing that I never heard of was parents trying to contact the university directly. All the financial stuff was in the student's name, from the student loan forms and original applications all the way through to actually paying for stuff when you were there. I doubt the lecturers would have spoken to anyone but the student about any academic matters. Your grades could only be collected in person. A parent's only source of knowledge for how their offspring was getting on would be the offspring themselves.
Not just academic and financial matters, basically anything to do with the individual student. From the university's perspective, the Data Protection Act is a guiding force. An employer should not disclose any information to third parties about employees (except where legally required), so a university cannot do so about its students* - and the parents are a 'third party'. So a university should not even disclose whether a person's child is actually a student at that institution. If this seems a bit strong, bear in mind that there are some cases where a parent not only has no right to know, but really must not be told anything - where 'family history' might mean that contact between parent and child is prohibited and it could be dangerous for the student for the university to disclose their presence to a parent (usually a father - let the reader understand). Clearly university staff cannot (should not) all be given detailed information about a student's circumstances, and the only way to deal with this is don't discuss a student with anyone outside the university.
Having said that , there will always be a few helicopter parents about the place, who will need to have it explained to them that the reason why little Jo doesn't seem to be making many friends is because you, the parent, are camped out in Jo's student accommodation. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
* The situation is rather different if the student is under 18, but this does not apply to the large majority of UK university students, who are adults.
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
I find the level of overprotectiveness seen in some of the contributions on this thread bizarre. I lived on my own since my sixteenth birthday. I didn't expect my parents to have anything to do with my choice of university, subject or funding (thankfully I was educated in the era of free degrees and grants.) In fact I think the first they knew that I was going to uni was when I wrote to them with my new address.
At 18 you are an adult, you are responsible for your decisions, your actions and your cock ups. How you choose to use your time and resources is up to you. And that is how it should be because otherwise how do you learn how to be a functioning adult. I found my time at uni to be useful to gain an education yes, but far more importantly it was a training ground for the real world - managing your diet, alcohol intake, drug intake, time, money, part time work etc etc. These are hugely important life lessons and if you don't learn them at 18 when are you meant to?
As to insisting on watching your adult child on Skype 24 hours a day - that's not parenting, that's stalking.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Arranged marriages are part of this (again, parents trying to provide security for their offspring) and I think different cultures have different amounts of arrangement that are deemed acceptable, but it's the same drive, especially (I imagine) for the bride's family in a patriarchal society.
Depends on the culture and the parents, but in many it is the parent's security being purchased by the marriage(and/or education) of the offspring.
Yep, that's what I meant. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Twenty or thirty years ago prospective students would not have dreamed of taking parents with them on university open days - it would be like having your mother still walk you to school aged 18, an embarrassment not to be endured. Now it is common practice, and good universities can be expected to have tours, talks, etc on open days for parents to attend while their offspring are having interviews, their own tours of the campus etc. I know that at our local university one of the most popular events at their open days is a talk/lecture on 'how to be a parent of a university student'.
I think it's a mark of adulthood that a person can ask their parents for their opinion about a major decision (like university study, purchasing a house or a car, or a major financial decision) and considering their suggestions without feeling embarrassed about it. This needs to be met by a mature attitude to parenting, which is about understanding that a request for an opinion does not mean they get to dictate a decision.
I'm glad that my parents asked their parents if they had any suggestions when it came time to have a new house built - even though they were in their thirties and had been living independently for over ten years each. Both sets of their parents had a couple of good suggestions which led to the final design being better, but also some suggestions which were not adopted because they were not suitable or the world had moved on since that wisdom was acquired.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
"Helicopter parents" is a media snarl-word designed to intrude in the relationship between parents and their children.
Thank you for that. It's natural for parents to want to protect their children and it's natural for young people in their teens/early twenties to feel smothered by it all. That's long been the incentive for them to get their education and move out. They aren't really meant to have it both ways, independent lifestyle and financial support.
Speaking from personal experience, all of my parental regrets, and I have quite a list, center around not hovering enough rather than otherwise.
If it's any consolation, I know someone who had a relatively "normal" childhood as far as we can tell. Smart kid, good grades, went to a good Christian college...
Hasn't communicated with her mom in a decade or so.
There are errors to be made in both extremes, and anecdotes to support them.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
As well as the financial aspects one other big change is the ease of communication. When I was an undergraduate living in a hall of residence 20 years ago, if my mother had wanted to speak to me, she would have rung the pay phone (if she knew the number) and hoped that:
a) it was free at the time
b) somebody answered
c) they were prepared to walk up two flight of stairs to my room
d) I was in
e) nobody else was using the phone by the time I got down to it.
Now that everybody has mobile phones and email accounts, it is much easier for parents to be in daily contact with their student offspring and to get immediate answers to their questions.
In weekly letters it is fairly easy to ignore an awkward question. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
A university student is an adult. The university needs to treat them like an adult. How they get on with their parents is none of the university's business. If the parents don't trust their daughter to use the money they give her, well, they have the option of not giving it. But the university's relationship is with the student, not with whoever is funding them.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But the university's relationship is with the student, not with whoever is funding them.
That may actually sound reasonable in the UK. I really don't know. But I do know that in the US, the one waiver the university gets the kids to sign immediately is that the parents can be contacted about money. And the university makes full use of that waiver -- not only in making sure that the parent knows exactly how much money the student owes the university and precisely when it is due, but by hounding the parent at least weekly with solicitations that cannot be opted out of by any means known to man. Your notion is just absurd over here.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A university student is an adult. The university needs to treat them like an adult. How they get on with their parents is none of the university's business. If the parents don't trust their daughter to use the money they give her, well, they have the option of not giving it. But the university's relationship is with the student, not with whoever is funding them.
Unless things have changed drastically since I last filled out these, the standard financial aid form for people of usual university age REQUIRES parental financial info as well as student data, unless you are either married or fall into rare legal circumstances. And the data is then processed to yield two numbers, an expected student contribution and an expected parental/family contribution. This amount of tuition etc is withheld from the amount you can receive need based grant money for ( if you are lucky) because theoretically you should be able to cough it up without grave difficulty.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Oops, posted too soon ...
You can see that in general they are treating the student as a minor for financial purposes regardless of adult legal age, and there is no easy way of opting out of this. If your parent/s refuse to disclose financial data, you the theoretically adult child are SOL unless you can find a way to alter your filing status. Believe me, divorce and child support fights makes this likely.) And even if the parents cough up all the very intrusive data, you will still be responsible for paying " their share" if for any reason they do not/ cannot. Which amount is normally larger than your own number, for which you are still responsible at the same time.
So financially you are still treated as a minor until marriage or a certain age, 26 I think it was in my time. Parents are not " giving" the money diectly to their children ( or not, as they see best). They are having it extracted from them ( slight hyperbole, not much) because the financial aid people will not do business in any other way. Therefore the widespread heavy loans.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
They in turn claim she has mental problems (despite being on the dean's list)
We haven't talked much about the mental health issue so far.
The parents' level of involvement is absurd (especially with the details—24-hour Skype, and so on), clearly. But I can certainly sympathize with the desire, on a smaller scale. There are a number of mental health issues (anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm, alcohol/drug problems, take your pick) that can—and, especially among young college-aged women in very-high-pressure environments, often do—go along with very high functioning. It would not at all be surprising for her to be both on the dean's list and severely bulimic, for example; in fact, many of the traits that lead to the positive side also lead to the negative (e.g., perfectionism). Furthermore, many of these (bulimia, self-harm, addiction) are behaviors that are very painful both to the ill person and their loved ones. Controlling and attempting to stop every instance of the behaviors in the short term does not help and often hinders long-term recovery, but you can certainly understand the desire to prevent your daughter from throwing up everything she's eaten or from cutting herself. Clearly these parents (if the alleged mental health problems are even real) took it way too far, and (as I said above) are hurting their daughter's chance of recovery. But I can understand what's going on.
Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on
:
My understanding of the term 'helicopter parents' includes the type of over protective behaviour typified by seeking to rescue kids from assorted situations and circumstances that the kid really ought to be encouraged to deal with themselves.
I'm thinking of occasions where a 'light touch' approach of parental support and advice is advisable but the over protective parent attempts to helicopter assistance into, or seeks to rescue the kid by helicopting them out of, the situation. I'd crawl through fire for my kids but there are times where their best interests are served by my leaving them to sort out whatever issues they have for themselves.
The leaving home to go to university is a huge learning curve for child and parent both. I've been on the end of the phone whenever needed this last year and at times have had to gently refuse the odd call for help to resolve issues with housemates or even faculties. I handled these calls for help by being a sounding board and talking through possible strategies rather than issuing commands or offering to get involved directly. I see my role as encourager in chief and an empower of a emergent adult. Seems to me that most of the learning going on at Uni doesn't always happen in the lecture theatre.
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on
:
omg, sorry so long!
Here's a story of a "helicopter parent", the learning curve in regards to college and parent's role in college. (USA)
I was definitly accused of being a helicopter parent. I don't really care. I did what I thought I needed to do.
I have a son who has experienced learning differences and challenges for his entire life in school. He is very artistic and talented and extremely capable in many many ways. Verbal tasks are not one of them. If it involved language and/or something that he didn't find intrinsically motivating, he didn't do well without ALOT of help.
He excelled in the visual arts program at his HS. So, when it came to finding post HS education, I thought that a college that has a large comprehensive learning disability department that had a program for film would be perfect. He agreed. (So, this was a collaborative decision).
He took his SAT's without accommodations because of the utter failure of his HS to do what was neccesary for these accommodations. Don't even get me started, but you can believe that it was their utter failure. He got a semi decent score (not utterly terrible) that got him into a liberal arts college with a program for low SAT scorers that show promise in some way. He fits this profile extremely well.
He was happy and excited to go. He went off. I worried incessantly but refrained from "hovering" other than utterly stalking his facebook and trying to determine how he was doing. There were some signs that all was not well. But I fell into the trap of not wanting to be a helicopter parent.
The college even failed to follow up on a request of ours for him to be placed in their most stringent learning disability program. I tried to argue my way into the program after they failed to follow up, but it was too late. I should have followed up rather than being afraid of too much hovering.
So, at the end of the semester, he was utterly kicked out. Oh, why? Oh, NOW they'll tell me. They told me that he stopped going to classes completely (except for theater). He handed in no homework, attended no tutoring sessions, never entered the ld department for help. He essentially shut down completely. He is a wonderful young man and he wasn't partying too much (though just a little) but he spent his time composing music, writing scripts, making videos and getting an A in theater. But he completely dropped out otherwise.
I had to come to the realization that I helped place him in a place where he was completely unable to cope with the academic demands. His devastation (yea, he was surprised, can you believe that?) added to my devastation and we were.....devastated. It was very difficult. He wasted precious precious money and violated our trust by not confiding in us. But we love him so much and believe in him so much that of course we moved on, to, "now what?"
That turned out to be a stint in community college where he tried and won back our trust. However, he still did not do that well. He eventually admitted that he wanted to go to a non degree giving film/acting school. I'm not sure why he didn't tell us this before. He was told that because of his previous behavior we would not assist the funding of such a school and needed to prove it to us.
So, he attended a total of 4 short term programs at this school that ranged in time periods from one week to two months. He had to live on his own and be responsible, attend class, etc. He has shown great, great interest and participation in the program for acting, which while not degree giving, is very time consuming and rigorous. So, he is accepted into a year program. What happens after that will be decided, collaboratively, between him, my husband and I. Believe me, we will now "hover".
I think it is ridiculous, ridiculous that colleges have laws that forbid parents from knowing anything even when they are footing the bill. It makes me so angry.
Now, the OP situation, where the parents have to have her on skype or whatever, is utterly ridiculous and horrifying and not "helicopter parenting" but a humiliating way to treat your child. Also, my younger son is also now in college and there is very little hovering and his first semester grades are very good. He is also, apparently, having tons of fun. So, my hovering is not a result of my not being able to let go of my children, but my son's individual characteristics and his needs.
So, it's all a matter of individual circumstances.
[ 31. December 2012, 00:01: Message edited by: Fool on the hill ]
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
There was no link in the OP, so I hunted it down: here.
The parents' actions clearly had nothing to do with their "investment" in her academic success--even if one were to accept that there was something normal and acceptable about installing monitoring software on her computer, etc., so long as that was the target (I don't, and find it extreme, even bizarre). College students are, with rare exceptions, adults. In the days of loco parentis, the age of majority in most of the US was 21, but it's been 18 in every state for over 30 years.
Having put two kids through college--they took out some loans, we took out some, roughly 50-50--I must say that I never felt like their education was in any way my property because I paid for part of it. I just felt I was passing on what my parents gave me. I certainly asked them about what and how they were doing, and they were (reasonably) forthcoming about both academic and extracurricular matters, but some things really are none of my business.
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on
:
All three of my kids went to University at age 18, having had a standard Comprehensive education in British State schools.
At University, each had exactly the same level of support from their parents.
We paid their annual parental tuition contribution for years two and three (and in the case of child number three, who went to a Scottish university, year four) and their maternal grandparents insisted on paying their first year's parental contribution as their contribution (they did this for all nine of their grandchildren).
Apart from child one, year one, we had at least two children at university for four years, because the middle child went on from her bachelor's degree to do a Masters/Teaching degree at Trinity Cambridge.
All of them took full advantage of the Student Loans Company, and all of them are now paying off the loans, and will be until they are at least forty. They all worked part-time whilst at Uni, which they all freely admitted was in order to provide sufficient drinking vouchers for the weekend.
They all had mobile phones, and they all knew where we lived and what our phone numbers were. Unless we had information we needed to impart (Nana's ill) we spoke to them when they wanted to speak to us, and we picked them up from railway stations or airports, or drove, on request to various Halls of Residence/Student houses at the beginning and end of academic years to deposit or collect belongings and/or their owners.
Whilst they were growing up, without telling them, we put bits and pieces of money donated by godparents, aunts and uncles and various other well-wishers into designated accounts in their names. They all went to University with a totally unexpected Post Office Savings bank book in their back pockets, which wasn't a vast sum but which, if used wisely, would have seen them through at least the first year's spending money. We never enquired whether it lasted until Christmas, but I am pretty sure that my eldest son's was gone by the end of December, that my youngest son eked his out for the whole (longer) Scottish first year, and that my daughter still had every penny in the same account when she left Uni.
My eldest decided to sell his nineteenth century Wolff Brothers violin in the Third Year, I think to fund his end-of-University all-mates-together bash in Spain. As he already owed me £200 which he had solemnly promised to repay, I had the fiddle valued, and gave him the value minus £200. The violin, whatever he has said in the intervening nine years, is MINE, I tell you, all mine!
When he expressed his shame at having to borrow money from me, I pointed out that his (maternal) uncle thirty years previously had gone up to Cambridge on a full scholarship and a full grant, and no fees, and had still needed to be bailed out in a major way by his father on three separate and very expensive occasions... and he only got a Third! It made my son (2:1) feel better - but he didn't get the violin back. His daughter might, if she asks her grandfather nicely, get a loan of it if she's interested.
When they left University, they each received a largish cheque which was one third of our then life savings, which we had been building up with legacies, savings, etc. with which to do as they wished, but which was in effect our signing-off grant - from now on, apart from emergencies, they were on their own, we had to build up our own nest-egg again, and I wanted to rejoin the Golf Club I couldn't afford whilst I was subsidising them. The eldest two were sworn to secrecy in turn as they got it - we didn't want any of them to know that that money was coming, and spend it before it hit their accounts.
They all got good degrees, they all went on to get good jobs, and as the eldest hits thirty and the youngest twenty-six they are all married, they all "own" their own homes, and two of them have a child: but it wouldn't matter if they had none of these things.
All that matters is that we did everything we possibly could to launch them into adulthood as smoothly as possible, that we loosed the arrows from the bow of our marriage and watched them fly.
I think we did okay: the measure of which is that, as adults, I wouldn't hesitate to ask any of them their advice, or their help, and I know I would get it. That's about the best you can do - okay. The rest is up to them: and I think that's true of whatever system.
Whilst we might never stop being concerned for our children, we have no right to attempt any form of coercion, no matter how we've supported them. Our kids don't owe us anything, they didn't make the decision to be conceived or born to us: the trick is not to owe them anything either, because that way cross-generational relationships are co-equal rather than co-dependent.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I was surprised to see the OP was abt parents and an adult child of this age. Around here helicopter parents is those who drive their kids to school versus letting them walk, think that public transit is either dangerous or for the poor and unwashed, monitor everything the kids do in and outside, praise everything the kids do even when not good etc. The kids end up with unrealistic expectations, inability to trust themselves, and otherwise fail to grow up. Entitled, complainative and annoying. If an adult other than a parent attempts to fail, discipline or direct such a child, the parents tend to over defend the child in inappropriate ways. when grown, the children often fail to launch, though that depends on how closely the heli-parents hover.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
There was no link in the OP, so I hunted it down: here.
The parents' actions clearly had nothing to do with their "investment" in her academic success--even if one were to accept that there was something normal and acceptable about installing monitoring software on her computer, etc., so long as that was the target (I don't, and find it extreme, even bizarre).
Yes, this parent appears to be acting absurdly. The problem I have with the OP is that these stories about the occasional crazy are used in an incredibly manipulative way by the educational establishment. They trot them out at orientation to say, in essense, "If you dare contact us for any reason except to provide money, you are being like this." It is foul in the extreme, and frankly exactly the kind of manipulative excess that I have come to expect from those in higher education. They have been over the top for so very long in this country that they think their excess is somehow the new normal. I think they've just spent so long surrounded by adolescents that they simply no longer know what adult behavior is.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
FotH, as the sister of an exceedingly smart boy with a learning disability, I want to say I don't think that you sound like a helicopter parent at all. If your elder son were nt, maybe your behavior would be helicoptering, but as it is, you are supporting him in a way other children would not need, it sounds to me. You mention that your older son is very talented in certain areas. That too may add to the perception that you are helping him too much. See, how well he is doing? Clearly his parents are just being obnoxious and he could handle whatever. Doesn't mean they are right, so yeah I definitely don't think you are helicoptering.
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
FotH, as the sister of an exceedingly smart boy with a learning disability, I want to say I don't think that you sound like a helicopter parent at all. If your elder son were nt, maybe your behavior would be helicoptering, but as it is, you are supporting him in a way other children would not need, it sounds to me. You mention that your older son is very talented in certain areas. That too may add to the perception that you are helping him too much. See, how well he is doing? Clearly his parents are just being obnoxious and he could handle whatever. Doesn't mean they are right, so yeah I definitely don't think you are helicoptering.
Thanks!
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The parents in this case installed monitoring software on the daughter's computer and phone. I'd have cut off all communication as well as filed a restraining order if my parents had done that. They also required her to keep her skype connected to them every minute she was in her dorm room. They even watched her all night long! They've accused her of mental illness without evidence and promiscuity. (How she could possibly have a relationship of any kind under the circumstances. These parents went WAY over the line. The judge agreed and the university also gave the daughter a full ride for her senior year.
If that poor girl IS mentally ill, I think I know who caused it....
I wonder how other cultures manage the transition? I was aware at son the younger's university that the all-women accommodation was almost entirely taken by young muslim women whose parents didn't want them sharing with men. But am not sure if they tried to intervene in other ways.
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on
:
From what I've seen, helicoptering begins long before the child goes off to college/uni/school (whatever you want to call it).
My children are 23 and 21. My husband and I have always had a deliberate policy of letting the kids be their own people -- making age-appropriate decisions, making and hopefully learning from mistakes, choosing their friends, interests, and pursuits, doing their homework on their own, and so on. I learned early on that they weren't extensions of me and my interests. I would guide them, but not attempt to mold them into something they weren't.
But we saw other parents from the moment of their child's birth through their teenage years and beyond doing everything for them, supervising every minute of their lives, making all their choices for them. We saw people pushing their children in directions that were quite unsuitable for them, like forcing them to play certain sports when they were clearly hating every minute. By the time she was a teenager, the child of the most helicopterish parents I knew --they intensely pushed her to succeed in activities they chose for her-- was harming herself and getting into trouble with the police.
Our daughter, happy, well-adjusted, and full of ambition, has finished university and a one-year post-grad community college program, with her tuition fully paid by us. She chose to attend a university in another city, so she had to cover a good chunk of her living expenses herself. We paid her tuition not because we expected some sort of return on investment, but as a gift to her, as part of our parental duty to provide for her to the best of our ability. We didn't inquire into her grades, since that was her own business. We knew she was committed to succeeding in school, and she knew that poor grades would keep her from achieving her goals.
Our son is a different creature altogether. He is not at all suited to academic study, has a slight learning disability, and barely made it through high school. He is, however, a gifted musician. He's reasonably happy now, working, writing and producing music, and planning to travel. If we had pushed him to try to get to university, he would by now be bitter, angry, likely on drugs (he smoked both tobacco and pot for a while -- the pot has largely stopped, and with our support, he stopped tobacco as well), possibly suicidal, and certainly hating us. Any attempts to improve his prospects by pushing him in a direction he wasn't suited for would have had the opposite effect. We're willing to make him the same sort of educational gift as we did his sister, if and when he's ready for that, as long as it's something he has a realistic expectation of succeeding in.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
As self-congradulatory as this thread has become, I would suggest that in my experience, it's not as simple as just "giving them wings". Although the extremes of either helicoptering or neglect are apt to not end up well, you can still do everything right and have things go terribly, horribly wrong. Parenting is not for sissies, but is very much for people of prayer.
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As self-congradulatory as this thread has become, I would suggest that in my experience, it's not as simple as just "giving them wings". Although the extremes of either helicoptering or neglect are apt to not end up well, you can still do everything right and have things go terribly, horribly wrong. Parenting is not for sissies, but is very much for people of prayer.
I agree entirely. For the purposes of this thread, I (and probably others) have focused on our children's successes that we've contributed to in one way or another without being overly protective, or described how certain individuals do need extra help and support, within appropriate limits. But my son's struggles have given me many sleepless nights (he could so easily have slipped into a destructive lifestyle, and he's still vulnerable and rather fragile) and I've cried rivers over both my kids, especially when they were having their teenage angst and acting out. And I by no means have always been a good parent, having my own struggles with depression and such. I'm quite astonished that my children have turned out as well as they have -- it's very much "there but for the grace of God" in my mind.
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As self-congradulatory as this thread has become, I would suggest that in my experience, it's not as simple as just "giving them wings". Although the extremes of either helicoptering or neglect are apt to not end up well, you can still do everything right and have things go terribly, horribly wrong. Parenting is not for sissies, but is very much for people of prayer.
I'm sorry if that's how my post came over. It wasn't meant to be self-congratulatory at all. I was trying to make the point that children "succeed" more because of their own efforts, and "fail" more if parents are too directive, rather than merely being as supportive as possible within their means. That's all. If that came across as complacent, I'm sorry it wasn't intended to be.
I too remember many anxious moments about my children throughout their childhood and adolescence. I still worry abrupt them now, when they are all adults: but I would ne'er have, in the past, felt I had the right to demand a "return on my investment" or that my children owed me anything at any stages of their lives (unless they'd actually borrowed actual money) .
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
but I would ne'er have, in the past, felt I had the right to demand a "return on my investment" or that my children owed me anything at any stages of their lives (unless they'd actually borrowed actual money) .
A number of people have said something more or less like this in this thread. The noton that a parent expects nothing from their children is either massively unaware or dishonest beyond measure. Come on, folks, there is absolutely nothing virtuous in the kind of isolationism implied by that nonsense. Stop trying to sound virtuous, and consider what you actually expect of your progeny. The obligations and expectations of family go in every direction, as they should.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
. The noton that a parent expects nothing from their children is either massively unaware or dishonest beyond measure.
Sorry, Tom, but you have no right to say this - you can't possibly know everyone who has replied.
I maintain, without being "unaware" as you so patronisingly put it, that my children owe me nothing, and I expect nothing from them in terms of an entitlement in return for an investment made by me as a parent.
As a member of the same family group who love each other, we might all feel that we might expect love and support however that comes, but whatever you say I do not regard my children or theirs as some kind of investment from which I ought to be feel entitled to expect a return, or some kind of insurance against my old age, or against loneliness.
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
quote:
Stop trying to sound virtuous, and consider what you actually expect of your progeny. The obligations and expectations of family go in every direction, as they should.
I'm a parent of a young child, so I'll readily admit I haven't had much of a chance to think about this from that angle. I will say that my own parents had both the ability and the inclination to pay for most of my higher education (not including seminary), either through their personal funds or through loans they took so I would not have to. I am extraordinarily fortunate in that regard, but it also meant that I was accountable to them in a very real and direct way all through school, and rightfully so.
If I had screwed up in a major way, and squandered the chances they gave me, I believe they might have sought repayment, and they would have been right to do so. This does not address the specific issues of the young lady in the OP; we can't know specifically what the story is there. But as a general matter, I agree with TClune.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
. The noton that a parent expects nothing from their children is either massively unaware or dishonest beyond measure.
Sorry, Tom, but you have no right to say this - you can't possibly know everyone who has replied.
Right you are. Some of them may breathe through their gills and eat granite for their nourishment, too. My bad.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
Tom, you seem to think there's a pretty broadly accepted view of what children owe their parents - one common enough that denying its existance is foolish or dishonest.
Would you care to give some examples of what you think those obligations are?
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Tom, you seem to think there's a pretty broadly accepted view of what children owe their parents - one common enough that denying its existance is foolish or dishonest.
Would you care to give some examples of what you think those obligations are?
Basically the same sort of thing that the parents owe their children. For the most part, financial resources are not the main issue. Most parents have been able to establish themselves in that way long before their children reached a point of being able to contribute. Although, in cases of extreme financial reversal, it would be reasonable to expect a child to pitch in if possible.
In the event of long-term health issues, it often becomes an issue that the child[ren] must deal with. Failure to do so is, in essense, a breach of the social contract. I seem to recall an injunction from somewhere that you must honor your father and mother that your days may be long on the earth, but that was probably from some idiosyncratic source that is not reflective of general human values.
To a larger extent than parents are often willing to express, there is a real expectation that their children will reproduce. Of course, there is many a slip... But the biggest way that children pay forward their debt to their parents is by giving them grand children.
This is hardly an exhaustive list, but should give some idea of the far-reaching web of interconnections that bind the generations together. I'm kind of shocked that such things don't go without saying.
--Tom Clune
[ 02. January 2013, 19:31: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
I find that really odd tclune, to be honest. Maybe it's because I've lived independently from my parents from a young age but the idea that a child is indebted to their parents seems to me to be a very selfish view of parenting.
I don't have children and, being in my late thirties and single, it is highly unlikely that I ever will have children. Am I somehow breaking this unwritten contract with my parents? The world is massively overpopulated as it is without their being an expectation that everyone has children.
As to looking after them financially, why should I? I have not taken a penny from my parents since I was ten years old, not a single penny. Why should I pay for them. They made their decisions about finances and part of that is to make responsible decisions for the future. I wouldn't see my parents on the street but I certainly wouldn't have them moving into the spare room.
I wasn't aware when I was born that I had signed up to some sort of contract with the people who gave birth to me that meant I was contractually obliged to do certain things for them. I may have a moral obligation but I certainly don't think I owe them anything purely because they happened to give birth to me
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Yeah, definitely not universal. I certainly don't expect my children to have children. I suspect I hope they eventually will, but I certainly think that decision is all theirs, and that I would have no right to expect them to do anything except wait until they are self-supporting. Similarly I'd be outraged if my parents implied that I owed it to them to have kids.
I agree that I owe it to my parents to keep them off the street if I have any choice, but they make their own decisions, and depending on what one of them does, I might not have any choice. Certainly, Even the parent I am very close to, I feel equal obligations to my younger sister who obviously didn't raise me or spend money on me.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I'm kind of shocked that such things don't go without saying.
Well, get used to it. Lots of people have different ideas.
I don't think I owe my parents grandchildren. I find it a bit nuts to think I should have had children just so my parents could have grandchildren, given that I never had the least bit of interest in being a mother. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent, and if it's the sole reason you're having kids, providing your parents with grandchildren is a really bad reason to have kids.
I think what people owe their parents emotionally depends on what they got emotionally. This is pretty much just natural payback. If parents fostered warm and loving relationships with their kids since childhood, they should be able to expect those relationships to be maintained into their kids' adulthood. But if they weren't loving, they can hardly expect much more than common courtesy from their kids later in life.
It's reasonable that ideas of what people owe their parents financially would vary tremendously, depending not only on personal finances but also what the cultural norms are -- some cultures put the support of elderly people entirely on their offspring, while others have substantial government benefits and thus make the support of the elderly a society-wide responsibility. The US doesn't seem to have a lot of consensus on this.
When my parents paid for my college education, I felt a responsibility to take it seriously, but I didn't feel that I had to make other choices to make them happy -- I chose a major according to my interests, not theirs. Shelling out a lot of money for your kids' education is a bit of a leap of faith in them -- a huge leap these days, actually, given the costs of education -- and parents who don't trust their kids to behave responsibly with large sums of money shouldn't make those gifts. At the same time, I think it's terribly unfair that schools treat students as adults for privacy purposes but as minors when dealing with money.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As self-congradulatory as this thread has become, I would suggest that in my experience, it's not as simple as just "giving them wings". Although the extremes of either helicoptering or neglect are apt to not end up well, you can still do everything right and have things go terribly, horribly wrong. Parenting is not for sissies, but is very much for people of prayer.
I'm sorry if that's how my post came over. It wasn't meant to be self-congratulatory at all. I was trying to make the point that children "succeed" more because of their own efforts, and "fail" more if parents are too directive, rather than merely being as supportive as possible within their means. That's all. If that came across as complacent, I'm sorry it wasn't intended to be.
I really wasn't trying to call out any one poster, rather the general tone of the thread-- there were several "here's how I did it right" type posts-- all of which quite true, but also perhaps a bit lacking in the humility of recognizing that, if it turned out well, some of that is sheer dumb luck for which we should be eternally grateful.
I don't agree that kids-- or anyone else for that matter-- succeed or fail entirely on their own. Raising responsible and self-sufficient young adults really does take a village-- none of us make it alone.
As a univ. prof. (and parent) I definitely see the perils of helicoptering and how it holds young adults back (and irritates administrators). But I also see the reverse-- how difficult it is for those who launch into young adulthood w/o any support whatsoever. This is particularly true in the US for "aged out" foster kids, who often turn 18 and are kicked out of the nest with no safety net whatsoever. The tenor of this thread would seem to suggest they would learn resilience and be launched into a successful career. While there are a few notable example of this, more often they end up floundering-- often even homeless. Because we really do need the support of family in moving from adolescence to adulthood. Young adulthood is the time for taking chances, for exploring the world, and for taking risks-- and with that there will be inevitably, quite a few failures. Learning to navigate all those milestones of young adulthood-- finding a job, renting an apartment, balancing a checkbook-- are all learned through trial AND error. Without SOME backup the "error" part of the equation can be epic.
All of which just to reiterate that it is a delicate balance, one we enter into as parents fearfully and prayerfully.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
To Timothy: Thank you for posting the link.
I think Cliffdweller's comment sums up the matter well.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
My son owes me grandchildren? Really? Now that's just plain weird!
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
My son owes me grandchildren? Really? Now that's just plain weird!
Tell him to pay up! With interest! Like, maybe get a dog, too, so you can have a "grandpuppy."
Yes, that is way over the top.
It is a more debatable question of whether children "owe" it to their parents to look after them in their old age. I know, growing up, my mother always insisted that we (my brothers and I) were not to bother ourselves with her--just place her in a nursing home and be done with it. But, when the time came, we refused to do that until her health deteriorated so badly that having 24-hour nursing care was a necessity. And even then we refused to "be done with it"--but kept coming to visit and holding countless family conferences as to finances and medical decisions.
I don't mean that to come across self-congratulatory. The point is that, from my mother's point of view, we most certainly did NOT owe it to her to take care of her. From her children's point of view, we most certainly DID.
And my attitude is similar. I believe I did owe it to my parents to look after them as they aged. After all, I loved them. I'd look after anybody I love. But, on the other hand, I don't believe that anybody owes it to me to look after me as I age. My problem and it should not be anybody else's burden. Certainly it is not a burden that those I love should be saddled with. Why would I? After all, I love them.
It is, I guess, a contradiction that I cannot explain rationally but I suspect that I am not the only person who feels that way.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Hey Tom I don't want grandchildren. Does your system allow me to ask for a Play Station 3 instead?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I believe I did owe it to my parents to look after them as they aged. After all, I loved them. I'd look after anybody I love. But, on the other hand, I don't believe that anybody owes it to me to look after me as I age. My problem and it should not be anybody else's burden. Certainly it is not a burden that those I love should be saddled with. Why would I? After all, I love them.
It is, I guess, a contradiction that I cannot explain rationally but I suspect that I am not the only person who feels that way.
Perhaps the point is that in our culture, there's no right or wrong answer - we as individuals simply do what feels best to us, and hope that our families will agree, or at least tolerate our choices without making too much fuss.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I believe I did owe it to my parents to look after them as they aged. After all, I loved them. I'd look after anybody I love. But, on the other hand, I don't believe that anybody owes it to me to look after me as I age. My problem and it should not be anybody else's burden. Certainly it is not a burden that those I love should be saddled with. Why would I? After all, I love them.
It is, I guess, a contradiction that I cannot explain rationally but I suspect that I am not the only person who feels that way.
Perhaps the point is that in our culture, there's no right or wrong answer - we as individuals simply do what feels best to us, and hope that our families will agree, or at least tolerate our choices without making too much fuss.
I understand that contradiction completely - it's about always making sure your expectation of what you're entitled to receive is always far less than what you feel required to give.
I have this kind of relationship with my grandparents now I'm in my late 20's, which is really cool. They know I don't expect to receive a gift from them on my birthday, but they put effort into finding a thoughtful gift each time. Likewise, they appreciate the way that I call them to see how they're doing on hot days like this (40.5°C and 6% relative humidity, and it's still not even midday yet) and that I still come around to see them even though they've told me on the phone that they are fine and that yes they are using the air conditioner.
I'm also aware that this understanding of generosity is not universal, and that it's a product of my upbringing that's come from my family and my church. One of the people I share a house with at the moment is a student from China whose father is a wealthy industrialist. This young guy has been brought up to understand nothing can ever be given or accepted freely, and that friendship is only about drawing mutual advantage out of a series of transactions. I find it ridiculous, if I offer him so much as a slice or two of a pizza he insists on finding out the cost of the pizza and paying me the exact value of how much he got.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
I certainly didn't intend to be congratulating myself. They both graduated, and are now struggling to different degrees (the daughter is the more energetic and enterprising one--we're trying to shove the son out of the nest for the second time). There were discussions about whether our money was being well spent at various times, and suggestions that if he wasn't ready to get the most out of his education, he might take a break to reconsider his goals (which he did). But it was never a matter of being paid back--it's about paying it forward.
As for grandchildren--it's not a big issue for me, though I think it would be a waste of good DNA if they didn't reproduce. My wife probably has different feelings.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
It is, I guess, a contradiction that I cannot explain rationally but I suspect that I am not the only person who feels that way.
I feel that way. I gave my Mum care way beyond most people's endurance. But I'd hate my kids to do that for me.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Hey Tom I don't want grandchildren. Does your system allow me to ask for a Play Station 3 instead?
My system is pretty simple: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, who am I?" If you think that's about PlayStations, knock yourself out.
--Tom Clune
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Hey Tom I don't want grandchildren. Does your system allow me to ask for a Play Station 3 instead?
My system is pretty simple: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, who am I?" If you think that's about PlayStations, knock yourself out.
--Tom Clune
I think that buying a Playstation "because it will please somebody else" is by far less a potentially devastatingly bad idea than having a child "because it will please somebody else".
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I think that buying a Playstation "because it will please somebody else" is by far less a potentially devastatingly bad idea than having a child "because it will please somebody else".
Enjoy your toy.
--Tom Clune
[ 04. January 2013, 12:45: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I think that buying a Playstation "because it will please somebody else" is by far less a potentially devastatingly bad idea than having a child "because it will please somebody else".
Enjoy your toy.
--Tom Clune
That's just it. When you suggest that children are owed you make them sound like comoditys.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
That's just it. When you suggest that children are owed you make them sound like commodities.
Well, I assume that the reason people have so aggressively misinterpreted what I had to say because it rubs too close to the bone. What I said was that there are obligations in family relationships. In truth, there are obligations in virtually every relationship (sorry if that seems radical).
One of the things that is true of humanity is that we very often fail to live up to our obligations for one reason or another. Sometimes, as when we default on our home mortgage, it may be because we lost our job and are unable to pay. That doesn't mean that we don't have an obligation to pay -- it just means that we can't always fulfill our obligations.
Sometimes, we choose not to fulfill our obligations. When we are mistakenly given an extra dollar at the check-out counter, we are obligated to return it if we notice. We may not do that, and it is to our shame if we don't.
Sometimes, we are so emotionally damaged that we just don't have it in us to live up to our responsibilities. I will let you fill in the example of your choosing for this.
But the point is that we have obligations all over the place. It may be our delight to fulfill some of them -- the fact that we may enjoy sex with our spouse does not mean that we have no marital obligation on that score.
And one may have children without giving any thought to the generations that preceeded us. But that does not change the obligations we are under. I cannot imagine a greater obligation than continuing the line of my ancestors. They sacrificed mightily, at least in part so that I might have life. In return, I owe them another generation.
There are many reasons why that obligation may be left unfulfilled. I'm sure it can be painful for some folks to think about that obligation and the fact that it has been left unfulfilled. I am not indifferent to the pain that some folks may have on this score. But the fact that a truth is at times unpleasant is not enough to make it no longer true.
--Tom Clune
[ 04. January 2013, 13:43: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Except for the fact that Earth is so massively overpopulated. Wonderful if you want kids - no obligation whatever if you don't imo.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Yeah, I really don't feel any obligation to continue my line. That just may not be as universal as you think, tclune. Instead, I rather feel that if I am going to have children, I have an obligation to the rest of the world to raise them to be aware of their obligations to the planet, because I am adding people to an already full world.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
not many children are able to borrow $140-200 K without at least a parental co-sign, and not very many parents have the credit for that without putting their house up for collateral.
I'm in for over $200k in PLUS loans. If it was only $20k I'd feel like I had a bit of a problem, if you know what I mean.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
That's just it. When you suggest that children are owed you make them sound like commodities.
Well, I assume that the reason people have so aggressively misinterpreted what I had to say because it rubs too close to the bone.
Well, I suppose that's one possibility! quote:
I cannot imagine a greater obligation than continuing the line of my ancestors.
Are you heir to some title of nobility, or one in a long line of only sons? Because otherwise this sounds a little grandiose. quote:
They sacrificed mightily, at least in part so that I might have life.
Are you sure about that? You've met a number of people here who don't seem to share your view of the chain of obligations - what makes you think your ancestors saw things then the way you do now?
Maybe they just sacrificed on behalf of their own children, individuals with whom they had an intimate, personal connection, and didn't really give much thought to people they'd never know who would eventually call them "ancestors".
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Well, I assume that the reason people have so aggressively misinterpreted what I had to say because it rubs too close to the bone.
Your assumption accords yourself the great honour of being uniquely honest, insightful, and non-defensive in this discussion. I do not think your assumption is warranted.
quote:
What I said was that there are obligations in family relationships. In truth, there are obligations in virtually every relationship
True, but there are different concepts of those obligations. Yours are not universal (sorry if that seems radical). I can honestly say that it had never, ever occurred to me that I was owed grandchildren by my offspring. But I was not raised with any sort of dynastic expectations.
quote:
I cannot imagine a greater obligation than continuing the line of my ancestors. They sacrificed mightily, at least in part so that I might have life. In return, I owe them another generation.
There are many reasons why that obligation may be left unfulfilled. I'm sure it can be painful for some folks to think about that obligation and the fact that it has been left unfulfilled. I am not indifferent to the pain that some folks may have on this score. But the fact that a truth is at times unpleasant is not enough to make it no longer true.
--Tom Clune
And yet in fact it is not true. It is yet another assumption you have made. It is slightly surprising to me that you do not genuinely see that Measures Vary about this.
Your sense of debt to your ancestors is admirable and probably shared by other posters. Your belief that the proper way to pay that debt/fulfill that obligation is continued biological reproduction does not appear to be shared. Not out of a sense of dishonesty or emotional pain, but a really different sense of what is owed and how it ought to be paid.
For example, I think it important to reproduce intangible values of my ancestors*: faith, compassion, endurance, stress on education, etc. I believe it's important to appreciate their struggles and learn from them. Make biological copies of them? No, not really important.
*biological and spiritual; this would include, strangely enough, celibate or non-biologically-reproductive Christians of the past.
[ 04. January 2013, 15:32: Message edited by: Leaf ]
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I cannot imagine a greater obligation than continuing the line of my ancestors. They sacrificed mightily, at least in part so that I might have life. In return, I owe them another generation.
Why? I am reminded of Sidney Poitier's speech in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. His father is expressing disapproval of Poitier's character's choice of a wife. The son's response:
quote:
You say you don't want to tell me how to live my life. So what do you think you've been doing? You tell me what rights I've got or haven't got, and what I owe to you for what you've done for me. Let me tell you something. I owe you nothing! If you carried that bag a million miles, you did what you're supposed to do! Because you brought me into this world. And from that day you owed me everything you could ever do for me like I will owe my son if I ever have another. But you don't own me!
Parents owe it to the child to look after the child and do everything they can for the child because they brought the child into this world. The child did not ask to be born. That is an obligation that the parents owe to the child. It does not create a reciprocal obligation on the part of the child to have further children. The sacrifices your ancestors made to give you life were owed to you--not a debt you have to pay. There is no unfulfilled obligation.
There is also a danger to the concept that there is an "obligation" to continue the line of one's ancestors. Because, if that is granted, it would necessarily follow that those ancestors should have control as to how that line is continued--that the son or daughter must marry a person of a genetic or social background that the ancestor deems appropriate or suitable for the continuation of the line. Admittedly, once upon the time, that was the common belief, and marriages were arranged between families because of that belief. That this is no longer commonly considered appropriate--indeed, considered inappropriate--exposes the flaw in believing that there is any moral or ethical obligation on the part of the child to continue the bloodline.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
If it was my debt to bring in a new generation, I've screwed that pooch.
Luckily my brother covered the obligation. So am I now a slave to support his genes, i.e. my niece and nephew? After all, maybe I'm bound by a geis to our branch of the gene pool. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
It sounds like the fallacy of Noble Blood - that there is much genetic connection between you and somebody half a dozen generations back. Go back far enough, and we're all doing it for Lucy. Try and stay in one reach of the gene pool and you end up with the Hapsburgs.
So, AFAIAC, any one of millions can carry forward my share of our common inheritance.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
I don't think I have an obligation to carry on even the ideas of my ancestors, much less their cancer/mental illness causing genes. Seriously, some of my ancestors were not good people—slave holders, racists, misogynists, warmongers . . . oh yeah, and that whole Trail of Tears thing. When you're descended from Andrew Jackson and others of his ilk, the list of "sins of the father" isn't short.
Sure, my parents are decent people. Get beyond them, and things get complicated or just plain bad. I'm not from a noble family or the Last Scion of some holy figure or other. Really, other than the fact my parents want grandkids to play with and/or complete their vision of their son having a Respectable life, the whole "I owe it to my ancestors" argument holds no water. If the ideals of my ancestors are transferred through me to the future, then I guess I owe it to the world to never even think of having kids, not ever!
Not that I believe I'd actually be transferring the hateful and appalling ideals of my ancestors to my hypothetical kids. After all, my parents aren't evil. They may have a very different vision of my future than I do (which causes problems, sure, but not "raised by racists" problems), but that's normal.
What isn't right is them forcing me to accept their vision of my future. It's taken me a long time to realize this, and I still haven't come to terms with it, but there are two very distinct halves to who I am: the respectable, restrained and very tame half that craves respectability and blending in (and spent three years in grad school studying Aquinas because of it—hard to get more respectable than that!) and the nutty chaos Muppet Circus host who likes art, language, tattoos and piercings, thinks Aquinas is the most boring thing ever but existentialism and radical philosophy actually have points, and that sculptor and Old Testament prophet actually sound like good jobs. They may not pay well, but fuck money. The first half is very definitely who my parents want me to be; it's certainly what they value, and what they think is good for someone to become. Sure, a bit of the latter is nice, but keep it under wraps. Much as the second half scares me, it scares me more to admit any of it to my parents.
So, really, what do I owe, and to whom? And to what degree to my often-present parents get to dictate and control it?
[ 04. January 2013, 17:30: Message edited by: Ariston ]
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
It would be interesting to hear some opinions from Shipmates who are closer to college age. I don't know if we have many such folk on the Ship.
I am also still curious to know opinions on this matter vary across cultural lines or, for that matter, historical lines. (Perhaps the helicopter parent phenomenon is a result of tiny nuclear family structure or of modern technology.)
It might be interesting to have a thread discussing (in a civilized fashion) the costs of higher education.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Well Tom I had a lengthy reply planned but many others have beaten me too it so I'll just add...
My spouse has an obligation to have sex with me?
Did I just enter the good Doctors tardis and wind up in Victorian times?
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
What I said was that there are obligations in family relationships. In truth, there are obligations in virtually every relationship (sorry if that seems radical).
--Tom Clune
Agree completely.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I am also still curious to know opinions on this matter vary across cultural lines or, for that matter, historical lines. (Perhaps the helicopter parent phenomenon is a result of tiny nuclear family structure or of modern technology.)
It might be interesting to have a thread discussing (in a civilized fashion) the costs of higher education.
The costs of higher education are one stressor. Another is that the middle class is shrinking in the United States and parents are seeing the window narrowing for their children to do as well as they have. But historically, there have been parents who insist on defining how their children live. College as a mass experience where most children have freedom heightens the conrast with those being strictly managed. It didn't show up as much back on the farm.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Parents owe it to the child to look after the child and do everything they can for the child because they brought the child into this world. The child did not ask to be born.
This brought to mind the passage in Beckett's Endgame, where the son is blathering on about how unhappy he is to be alive. Finally, he asks his father, "Why did you ever have me?" To which the father replies, "I didn't know it would be you."
--Tom Clune
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Perhaps a clue about appropriate / inappropriate parental intervention is whether the child is pleased or embarrassed by his parent's actions. This report about a letter sent by Tom Daley's mum, has received praise from her son. They seem to have a very healthy relationship. I can think of other sporting or musically gifted children where the relationship is decidedly unhealthy, intrusive and overbearing.
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on
:
Interesting article in the state's newspaper today.
Parental hovering
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Parents owe it to the child to look after the child and do everything they can for the child because they brought the child into this world. The child did not ask to be born.
This brought to mind the passage in Beckett's Endgame, where the son is blathering on about how unhappy he is to be alive. Finally, he asks his father, "Why did you ever have me?" To which the father replies, "I didn't know it would be you."
--Tom Clune
There was a young man from Cape Horn
Who wished he had never been born.
He wouldn't have been
If his father had seen
That the end of the frenchie was torn.
Michael Kirby, a now retired judge of our High Court, would almost certainly have allowed a claim for damages by the young man against his father - see Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15; (2006) 226 CLR 52. Rather more sensibly, the other members of the Court held that there was no cause of action.
Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps a clue about appropriate / inappropriate parental intervention is whether the child is pleased or embarrassed by his parent's actions.
I agree with this. My mother was something of a helicopter parent and I deeply resented her inteusiveness and overprotection, which felt smothering at times.
I remember one school concert where parents were invited. We'd already been told not to wave at our parents, but I did, so the teacher quite rightly told me off. Next thing, my mother had flown down to my seat at the speed of sound and asked me (in a very loud voice), 'What was that teacher saying to you? Was she telling you off?' - in front of all my classmates! I was mortified and so embarassed that I lied to her,to get her to go away. I think I said the teacher had been giving me soem last minute singing advice!
Don't underestimate the harmful qualities of helicopter parentling. I never felt that I could confide in my mother about anything, so her parentling methods were actually quite counterproductive. By contrast, mr dad was very laid back and we got on famously.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0