Helicopter Parenting Raises Dependent Children

[Shangas]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-hovering-parent-arrests-growth-study-20130119-2d0p4.html

According to this rather interesting article, instances of "helicopter parenting" have been on the rise to such an extent that we're in danger of raising a generation of children who have become so used to, or so dependent on their parents that they're in danger of being a bunch of lost, trapped and incapable teenagers and adults.

Something I thought the Lounge might enjoy reading. I certainly found it fascinating stuff.

 

[Feraud]

Having raised a child and been around and involved in the school system, church, Boy Scouts, and team sports, I'll unequivocally state I don't buy this. I can say I've observed a child or two whose parent hovered to the point of limiting the child's emotional/intellectual growth.

I'll take a copy of any such article and we can visit a school and see how coddled children are. If these kids are so coddled and scheduled why are there frequent reports of academic underperformance? Am I expected to believe parents are hovering over every aspect of their children's lives except getting them to study and get to bed on time?

I wish many parents were more interested in their children's lives..

 

[sheeplady]

Having raised a child and been around and involved in the school system, church, Boy Scouts, and team sports, I'll unequivocally state I don't buy this. I can say I've observed a child or two whose parent hovered to the point of limiting the child's emotional/intellectual growth.

I'll take a copy of any such article and we can visit a school and see how coddled children are. If these kids are so coddled and scheduled why are there frequent reports of academic underperformance? Am I expected to believe parents are hovering over every aspect of their children's lives except getting them to study and get to bed on time?

I wish many parents were more interested in their children's lives..

I'd agree with this. I've taught probably over 300 undergraduate students in the past 4 years, and I have yet to see one that was "too tied" to mommy and daddy. I've heard all the stories- parents calling professors, parents doing homework, parents coming and living with students during finals- and I have never observed any of that myself. Some of this could be where I teach as we have a lot of students from disadvantaged backgrounds who may only have one present parent who doesn't have the time to coddle (or in some cases the students come from really horrific backgrounds where their parent(s) did the opposite of coddling).

The only case I have ever seen is when I went to visit a colleague and he was in a meeting with a potential student for the M.S. program he is director of. The young woman (probably about 21) was there with her father. Now that did stun me, but that's the only example I've seen. I can see a parent wanting to go with a student to see the campus and the city, but not to actually sit in on the interview. If I wanted to go with my child I'd go sit in a cafe or out in a car while the interview took place, but I'd prefer to just stay out of it altogether. They can borrow the car to go if they don't have one, or I can drop them off. I honestly don't know how I'd deal with a parent who showed up with a student for a college (yet alone grad) admission's interview and wanted to sit in on the meeting.

But again... I think that's pretty rare.

ETA: I do think we need to change our viewpoints on helicopter parenting. The few people I knew who grew up in families like this it was more about "control" of the child than anything else. If a parent is trying to "control" every aspect of a child's life then that is abuse. We shouldn't give it a really nice name. I don't see this controlling by extreme over scheduling, parents picking what activities their child should be involved in, etc. as any different than a parent who prohibits their child from ever leaving the house and denies their child from doing anything they wish (within reason). Both are just different aspects of extreme control.

 

[Fletch]

Anecdotes about coddling need to be taken with several grains of salt. There's a lot of resentment floating around on the part of people who were abused or neglected as children, and who think all the concern about child abuse or neglect is a sign of social degeneracy. We ought never underestimate how self centered people's moral consciences can be, especially when they have suffered in life and need to rationalize it as normal.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I must say, I would prefer the term hummingbird parent, if we're just making up names for a phenomenon using something that hovers.

Or kestrel parenting. Certainly looks like my Ma when I was playing up. Something that hovers but also inspires fear, and not just in Southwark.

 

[Mabel]

Helicopter parenting seems to be most common among the upper middle class. It's those parents who do things like fight to get their kids into the most sought after preschool in the city, or train them from the age of three to be able to get into Harvard, that tend to be helicopter parents. They want their kids to be uber successful; they see these behaviors as an investment of their time and money, so it doesn't occur to them that they are being overprotective.
They will go in and argue with a high school teacher over a grade, because those grades have to be PERFECT if they are going to get their kid into Georgetown/Harvard/Yale and then later, get a job at a prestigious firm or corporation. Same reason they do their kids homework, or want to sit in on an admission interview.
That's where I've seen most helicopter parenting, anyway. It's parents who are overly concerned with the trappings of academic success as opposed to learning for learning's sake. They tend to be terrified of their child making a mistake and having it ruin their plans for the kid.

 

[MikeBravo]

I'd agree with this. I've taught probably over 300 undergraduate students in the past 4 years, and I have yet to see one that was "too tied" to mommy and daddy. I've heard all the stories- parents calling professors, parents doing homework, parents coming and living with students during finals- and I have never observed any of that myself. Some of this could be where I teach as we have a lot of students from disadvantaged backgrounds who may only have one present parent who doesn't have the time to coddle (or in some cases the students come from really horrific backgrounds where their parent(s) did the opposite of coddling).

Actually, that strikes me as not a bad idea. Making sure they eat poperly, study efficiently and get enough rest and relaxation during a high pressure time.

 

[sheeplady]

Actually, that strikes me as not a bad idea. Making sure they eat poperly, study efficiently and get enough rest and relaxation during a high pressure time.

I think in the stories I've heard, it's the idea that Mommy and Daddy sit there with a stop watch and time their studying, keep track of their schedule, bring them food so they don't leave their rooms and they can keep studying, etc. Really extreme in the sense that they don't trust their kids to get stuff done if they aren't supervising every minute of their time and every minute of their time *must be spent studying.* That is very unhealthy during finals- taking a nice short walk or going out to a nice dinner makes the time you spend studying a lot more effective.

Most of the stories I've heard about this sort of thing (not just finals) aren't about the parents being helpful so much as them trying to control every aspect of their child's life with no input from their child. For instance, coming to visit during finals and dropping off food is fine. Taking them out to dinner is fine. Doing their laundry for them during finals is fine. Laying out a study schedule and then being a drill sargent isn't ok at that age unless your child requests it.

A lot of my friends got care packages during finals when I was in college. I was always quite jealous because they got all these snacks and other fun stuff. So I'm not saying that parents shouldn't be supportive of their kids- they should absolutely support their children- but they shouldn't try to control every aspect of their lives. To me that's the difference between a supportive parent and a controlling parent. When a child says, "I would really like to study X in college" a supportive parent says "Why would you like to do that and how can I help?" and a helicopter parent says "Oh, no, you can't become an X or study X, you have to do Y" and then proceeds to run over the kids dreams and live vicariously through their kid.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Helicopter parenting seems to be most common among the upper middle class. It's those parents who do things like fight to get their kids into the most sought after preschool in the city, or train them from the age of three to be able to get into Harvard, that tend to be helicopter parents. They want their kids to be uber successful; they see these behaviors as an investment of their time and money, so it doesn't occur to them that they are being overprotective.
They will go in and argue with a high school teacher over a grade, because those grades have to be PERFECT if they are going to get their kid into Georgetown/Harvard/Yale and then later, get a job at a prestigious firm or corporation. Same reason they do their kids homework, or want to sit in on an admission interview.
That's where I've seen most helicopter parenting, anyway. It's parents who are overly concerned with the trappings of academic success as opposed to learning for learning's sake. They tend to be terrified of their child making a mistake and having it ruin their plans for the kid.

Could it also be a cultural thing because helicopter parenting does seem a bit more prevalent among Asian families.

 

[Mabel]

Could it also be a cultural thing because helicopter parenting does seem a bit more prevalent among Asian families.

It's not just Asian families. I'm sure they have their share of helicopter parents, but it is not uncommon among white, upper-middle and upper class families. I saw a lot of it. I went to a small, private college that taught the classics, and many of my classmates went on to Ivy League schools for graduate studies. (I didn't, I became an artist. ) But lots of the kids had parents who were absolutely fanatical about them getting into good schools and expected them to become doctors/lawyers/bankers etc. I came from a working class background, so this culture was alien to me and I spent time studying these people. It's a common belief among them that if their kids do not do these things, they will end up lower middle class or worse, and that terrifies them. They want their kids to remain part of upper class culture, with its emphasis on academic performance and finding a job that makes you lots of money.

It's part of the social and economic stratification that has been getting worse over the last 30 years. Working class and lower middle class people now have a different culture than upper middle class and upper class families, and completely different values.

 

[sheeplady]

It's not just Asian families. I'm sure they have their share of helicopter parents, but it is not uncommon among white, upper-middle and upper class families. I saw a lot of it. I went to a small, private college that taught the classics, and many of my classmates went on to Ivy League schools for graduate studies. (I didn't, I became an artist. ) But lots of the kids had parents who were absolutely fanatical about them getting into good schools and expected them to become doctors/lawyers/bankers etc. I came from a working class background, so this culture was alien to me and I spent time studying these people. It's a common belief among them that if their kids do not do these things, they will end up lower middle class or worse, and that terrifies them. They want their kids to remain part of upper class culture, with its emphasis on academic performance and finding a job that makes you lots of money.

It's part of the social and economic stratification that has been getting worse over the last 30 years. Working class and lower middle class people now have a different culture than upper middle class and upper class families, and completely different values.

Did you get the sense that the kids (well, adults, but these parents' kids) were cooperative in all this? Did the kids just accept it, welcome it, or rebel?

I sadly think that a lot of those kids are unhappy if their parents made so many life decisions.

 

[Shangas]

Could it also be a cultural thing because helicopter parenting does seem a bit more prevalent among Asian families.

I don't believe that helicopter parenting happens in Asian families. Or rather, not to the extent that one might believe.

I refuse to be offended by Vic's sentiment here. I can see where it comes from, and I can understand why it would appear so.

Asian parents have a stereotype of being extremely hard on their kids, and getting them to study and work and study and read and better themselves and learn a bazillion skills and everything.

Trust me, I know plenty of parents like that. To a certain extent, my parents are like that.

But...THAT SAID...I don't believe (or at least, have not heard/experienced) Asian parents "helicoptering" to the extent of basically invading and living their kids' lives FOR them, which seems to be the theme with helicopter-parenting, in that parents want the BEST for their kids, so they do it FOR their kids.

I can certainly attest to many arguments with my own father on the subjects of mathematics and science, neither of which I excelled at, and which I think he took as a personal insult. It took him years to see that it was a waste of time, and that I far better excelled at writing, reading, English, Geography and History.

But once he did, there was a lot more peace around the house.

Asian parents who pressure their kids like this are generally called "Tiger mums" or "Tiger dads", and I know plenty of them. My aunt is one such tiger-mum. Between my two cousins, she had them learning piano, ballet, gymnastics and Chinese calligraphy, to better themselves educationally and culturally.

But there again, is the difference. It's not about running your kids' lives to the extent mentioned in the article, it's about trying to improve their minds and get them to learn new things. Which I believe is different.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes, I believe pretty much everyone in the thread probably has Amy Chua or Sandra Tsing Loh's article in their mind when commenting here. These are part of a recent, unapologetic, narrative on Asian culture parenting styles (particularly as practiced by second or third generation children of immigrants to the USA).

I must say, I have never experienced - in the US, Hong Kong, or the UK - any of the stories of overbearing parents outlined above. But then, I've never been in the presence of too many purportedly upper class (i.e. rich) folks.

bk

 

[LizzieMaine]

True upper class people don't worry about getting into good schools. They get into good schools as legacy admissions. It's the middle and upper-middle strivers and climbers who panic about such things, despite the fact that no matter how hard they strive and climb, the very fact that they have to strive and climb permanently marks them as Not Upper Class. There's a line there that no amount of money and education can ever cross.

What upsets me is when kids who clearly aren't motivated for higher education are forced into it by parents or, even worse, by school counselors who push and push and push them. There's a girl I know who took out $20,000 in loans to go to art school, because all the counselors told her she should and pushed and pushed and pushed, even though what she really wanted to do was study massage therapy. You can guess how it turned out -- she's unhappy and out of her element, and she's got a debt hanging around her neck she'll never pay off no matter how many necks she rubs.

 

[Mabel]

Did you get the sense that the kids (well, adults, but these parents' kids) were cooperative in all this? Did the kids just accept it, welcome it, or rebel?

All three, depended on the kid. Many accepted it, and slowly convinced their parents they could excel without them hovering over. Some welcomed it, and a few I knew rebelled. In fact one of the rebellers was a friend of mine---a half-Chinese half-Jewish girl named Shu Linn, whose Mother used to call her every night to make sure she had done her homework and was not partying at all hours (If you knew Shu Linn, this was hilariously absurd. She was a health nut, teetotaler, and never went to the college parties). She eventually quit school, and left to go study nutrition against her Mother's wishes.

True upper class people don't worry about getting into good schools. They get into good schools as legacy admissions.

This is how I was brought up to think of the upper class as well, and my college experience taught me it is totally incorrect. Many upper class kids are not legacies, they will often go to a different Ivy League than their parents. What set the truly wealthy apart from the upper-middle class kids was the schools they attended before they got to college. These kids all grow up going to a small handful of private, elite boarding schools. They could pick each other out simply by the way they dressed or spoke, because the prep schools share a specific philosophy and lifestyle, and it gives upper class kids a collective identity that the rest of us don't share.

Also, when they apply at an Ivy League, having one of these prep schools on their transcripts is like a dog whistle. It tells the admissions office that this kid is part of that collective identity, which many of the employees at the University share. It's not the legacies that get these kids into Harvard/Yale/Stanford, it's the prep schools, and the social contacts they make growing up at these schools. This all goes on with complete complicity of the college admissions officers.
Striving and climbing is absolutely a part of the upper class culture, it is expected of them. They just do it in ways middle and working class people don't realize.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Striving and climbing is absolutely a part of the upper class culture, it is expected of them. They just do it in ways middle and working class people don't realize.

Ah, I think we may be defining upper class differently. The upper class people I know are old-money New England WASPs, for want of a better term, the "Boston Brahmin" types. They don't strive, because they don't have to -- they know they've already achieved everything they want to achieve, and there's nothing that can take it away from them, so there's really no need for further striving or worrying about status. They're actually very relaxed people, and rather pleasant to talk to, as long as you know your own place in the grand scheme of things. They generally like working-class folk, out of a sense of noblesse oblige, but they consider strivers to be vulgar, no matter how much money they have. We have a lot of these folks around here, especially in the summer, and I've known quite a few -- they are marked by their utter lack of any sort of pretentiousness or sense of insecurity such as you often get from upper-middles. If you see an elderly man in a seersucker jacket that looks like he slept in it, a pair of wrinkled khaki pants, and Mr. Rogers sneakers with white socks, you're looking at a true member of the Upper Class in his natural plumage.

I once heard it described thus -- If you can describe how your father made his fortune, you're middle class no matter how much money you have. If there are colorful stories about how Great-Granddad made his money, always told with a wink and a nudge, you're upper-middle-class no matter how much money you have. If you have no idea how your family made its fortune, you're true upper class.

The prep-school thing is absolutely right though. My niece ran into this when she went to an elite college on a scholarship -- the insularity of that network had the effect of completely marginalizing anyone who wasn't part of that crowd. A working-class kid from a small-town public high school wasn't ever going to cross that line, no matter how smart or how motivated she was. Class lines were firmly and immovably drawn -- which is something middle-class folk, for all their striving, don't understand. They're like mules chasing a carrot held out on a stick by the man driving the cart.

 

[Mabel]

That's interesting. I do not know much about upper class Bostonians, I admit.

The super rich kids I met were also very relaxed and nice to talk to. They are taught at those elite prep schools to be confident and politically deft, and it really shows. Perhaps we are defining striving differently, then? I call these kids strivers because they had the best work ethic on campus. Those kids would not socialize until all of their homework was done, and they regularly got the best grades in a class. But they never came across as desperate or panicky, they were always completely in control of themselves.

They also tended to dress really eccentrically, much like what you describe, although it would more likely be high-watered jeans and a ragged old t-shirt than a seersucker suit. Apparently that quirk extends to their grandfathers!

ETA: to get this back on its original subject, their parents were sometimes overly involved in their kids lives, but now that I think about it, it was always the ill-adjusted ones whose parents did that sort of thing. The well-adjusted kids didn't need their parents to hover, they learned in prep school how to be overachievers without their parent's involvement.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I see what you're saying, sure -- when I say "striving" I mean class-climbing, the idea that you have to work hard to advance in your career and social standing. Upper class folk have no need to do this, because they were born at the top, and they don't worry about going up or down ladder because as far as they've understood their whole lives, there is no ladder. Either you is, or you ain't.

But you're right that they do have a very strong work ethic for doing what they choose to do with their lives -- it isn't a question of striving for position, it's because it's expected of them to make some worthwhile, substantial contribution to the world. Noblesse oblige, again, is a very powerful motivation with true uppers -- Franklin D. Roosevelt is a prime example of this from the Era.

 

[Mabel]

Yes, I understand what you are saying, as well. A few middle class kids had social climbing parents, and nothing was more embarrassing on that campus than a parent who acted in that manner. It definitely marked those kids as NOT part of the upper class.



Many of the super rich kids had amusing, charmingly eccentric parents. I knew one kid who grew up in Hollywood---his Dad was a big time Oscar-winning art director or some such. His parents were always, endlessly, 'celebrating' something, and I never saw his Mother without a glass of champagne in her hand.

Another friend grew up in---can't remember the name of it---the toniest neighborhood in Chicago, I was told. Over a Christmas break, another friend from Chicago visited him. He was taken all through their mansion on a tour, while the first kid was saying things like 'I don't think I've ever been in this room'. In his own house.:eeek: His Dad was a lawyer for Motorola. I have this friend in my facebook, and his profile pic is of him and President Obama grinning for the camera.

Another kid I knew invited my best friend and I to his home over Spring break. His Mother was very charming, and when she found out we were two working class girls who had gotten scholarships, she insisted we use the Waterford crystal at dinner, because we 'needed to practice'. She carefully instructed us on proper dining etiquette, and told us if we married rich men we'd need to know this stuff. She was a hoot.

I learned a great deal about the differences between the upper, middle and lower classes at that school.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think my niece did too -- the most important lesson being that the idea of America as a society without an established class system is an utter myth. And it's a *caste* system as much as it is a *class* system, which all the helicopter parenting in the world can't change.