[Mick]

I wholeheartedly agree with Julie's critique of helicopter parenting and the need for young adults to learn to take control of their own success.

But it is almost farcically naive in the stressful, complex world created by elite admissions processes.  The competition to get into schools like Stanford is so high that only students with elaborate support structures have a ghost of a chance.  I would bet that more than 90% of the entering students at elite institutions had parents who did at least one of these things: paid for extra college counseling; paid for SAT training; paid for lessons or memberships in extracurricular activities designed to enhance the application; paid for study abroad opportunities; use personal connections to arrange for summer internships; paid for travel expenses for college visits and interviews.  The numbers of students who could figure out how to do all of this by themselves without parental helicoptering is tiny.  Very few if any of these things would have been done a couple of generations ago when I was an applicant, and so it is the ramped-up competition driven by admissions offices that has helped to create helicopter parents.  Parents become personal-trainers preparing their kids for the brutal world of college admissions--a role that some of them apparently cannot set aside after college begins for their kids.

All these books talking about getting away from intrusive parenting and emphasizing the need for young people to individuate and learn personal responsibility are correct in their goals; I do not think, however, that they truly understand the causes of the cultural shift that has produced this unhealthy environment. 

Now, let's say that Stanford decided to only admit students who have taken a year off after high school for national service of some sort, or to work at a job.  Let's say that it sharply limited the volume of extracurriculars, test scores, AP courses, etc. that can be on an application.  Let's say that it set a standard for admissions--high--but then randomly chose from among all applicants who met the standard.  Let's say that it entered into a consortium with the Ivies and other elites and they all did the same. 

Why then you might find a lot of helicopter crashes.

Your comments in helicoptering parents are spot on.

I do think that young people need to learn to individuate and need to learn personal responsibility, I'm just doubtful that laissez-faire parenting gets you there, and it certainly doesn't get you there quickly enough. The terribly unfair thing about life is that a lot of life choices need to be made correctly and need to be made as minors, and parents need to step in and support those life choices or make them for their kids. "Wing it" doesn't seem to be a terribly effective parenting philosophy; it certainly wasn't for my parents who employed that philosophy with six kids, all of whom had variously difficult degrees of adjusting and making decisions in the adult world. My parents were the absolute antithesis of the helicopter parent, and I think, emblematic of the generation raised in the 1950s.

Am I a helicopter parent? My older son was reasonably athletic, tried and played more than half a dozen sports and settled on a single sport by his sophomore year. I footed the bill for his club sport from age 13 onward for him, and it wasn't cheap. But he was actively recruited by four of the top colleges in the country and both of my sons attended said school. Here's the funny part...the first time I ever heard the phrase "helicopter parent" was by the owner/director of the club. She was eyeballing about a dozen parents who were intently watching tryouts and she snorted derisively and muttered under her breath "helicopter parents," then explained to me what the term meant. What's funny is that the club director's kids were at another club, and they weren't getting playing time at their preferred position...so this woman started her own club. And maybe that's the perfect definition of a helicopter parent; "If my child doesn't get to play their preferred position, I will start my own club and make it happen." I provided the opportunity, but my kids did their own work.

Incidentally, I sense that there are two definitions of "helicopter" parent floating around this thread: (a) parents who actively involve themselves in supporting their child's efforts, help map out their curricula, support them both financially and socially with extracurriculars but leave the decisions up to the kids once they point the way and (b) parents who intercede in an obtrusive fashion on behalf of their child to secure benefits to which that child would not otherwise be entitled. I don't think of the two groups as one and the same.

[Mick]

I wholeheartedly agree with Julie's critique of helicopter parenting and the need for young adults to learn to take control of their own success.

But it is almost farcically naive in the stressful, complex world created by elite admissions processes.  The competition to get into schools like Stanford is so high that only students with elaborate support structures have a ghost of a chance.  I would bet that more than 90% of the entering students at elite institutions had parents who did at least one of these things: paid for extra college counseling; paid for SAT training; paid for lessons or memberships in extracurricular activities designed to enhance the application; paid for study abroad opportunities; use personal connections to arrange for summer internships; paid for travel expenses for college visits and interviews.  The numbers of students who could figure out how to do all of this by themselves without parental helicoptering is tiny.  Very few if any of these things would have been done a couple of generations ago when I was an applicant, and so it is the ramped-up competition driven by admissions offices that has helped to create helicopter parents.  Parents become personal-trainers preparing their kids for the brutal world of college admissions--a role that some of them apparently cannot set aside after college begins for their kids.

All these books talking about getting away from intrusive parenting and emphasizing the need for young people to individuate and learn personal responsibility are correct in their goals; I do not think, however, that they truly understand the causes of the cultural shift that has produced this unhealthy environment. 

Now, let's say that Stanford decided to only admit students who have taken a year off after high school for national service of some sort, or to work at a job.  Let's say that it sharply limited the volume of extracurriculars, test scores, AP courses, etc. that can be on an application.  Let's say that it set a standard for admissions--high--but then randomly chose from among all applicants who met the standard.  Let's say that it entered into a consortium with the Ivies and other elites and they all did the same. 

Why then you might find a lot of helicopter crashes.

Your comments in helicoptering parents are spot on.

I do think that young people need to learn to individuate and need to learn personal responsibility, I'm just doubtful that laissez-faire parenting gets you there, and it certainly doesn't get you there quickly enough. The terribly unfair thing about life is that a lot of life choices need to be made correctly and need to be made as minors, and parents need to step in and support those life choices or make them for their kids. "Wing it" doesn't seem to be a terribly effective parenting philosophy; it certainly wasn't for my parents who employed that philosophy with six kids, all of whom had variously difficult degrees of adjusting and making decisions in the adult world. My parents were the absolute antithesis of the helicopter parent, and I think, emblematic of the generation raised in the 1950s.

Am I a helicopter parent? My older son was reasonably athletic, tried and played more than half a dozen sports and settled on a single sport by his sophomore year. I footed the bill for his club sport from age 13 onward for him, and it wasn't cheap. But he was actively recruited by four of the top colleges in the country and both of my sons attended said school. Here's the funny part...the first time I ever heard the phrase "helicopter parent" was by the owner/director of the club. She was eyeballing about a dozen parents who were intently watching tryouts and she snorted derisively and muttered under her breath "helicopter parents," then explained to me what the term meant. What's funny is that the club director's kids were at another club, and they weren't getting playing time at their preferred position...so this woman started her own club. And maybe that's the perfect definition of a helicopter parent; "If my child doesn't get to play their preferred position, I will start my own club and make it happen." I provided the opportunity, but my kids did their own work.

Incidentally, I sense that there are two definitions of "helicopter" parent floating around this thread: (a) parents who actively involve themselves in supporting their child's efforts, help map out their curricula, support them both financially and socially with extracurriculars but leave the decisions up to the kids once they point the way and (b) parents who intercede in an obtrusive fashion on behalf of their child to secure benefits to which that child would not otherwise be entitled. I don't think of the two groups as one and the same.