[Mick]

Over the last few months, I'd posted several times about Stanford softball and its perfect storm. What attracted me to it as a story is that the parents are at the center of it. I hadn't thought much about it over the past six weeks or so, and then I ran across this post on the Aggie board:
http://aggiesportstalk.yuku.com/topic/54...ggXEFKnaac

It's a fairly pedestrian series of posts, except for two things: first, it claims that the Stanford athletic endowment is the largest in the country at $270 mms., dwarfing the next largest, Noter Dame at $130 mms.; and second, the last post references helicopter parents and a book written by former Stanford Associate Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Dean of Freshmen, Julie Lythcott-Haims, '85 and Harvard Law School shortly thereafter. She had a short stint in corporate law, then returned to Stanford. Here, Dean Julie gives an interview on her plans shortly before she wrote her book:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/march...32812.html.

Dean Julie's book is titled "How to Raise an Adult," and I imagine that some of the frustration she may have faced dealing with helicopter parents comes out in this book. Not sure if she retired to write the tell-all, but she didn't mention in in the departing interview. She was apparently headed to an MFA in poetry (and took a course in "Creative Non-Fiction" -- would love to hear how that oxymoron works -- field trips to MSNBC and Fox?), then decided to comment on parents:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/books/....html?_r=0

And her LinkedIn page is fairly insistent upon her current role:
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id...cott-Haims

I love the opening line of that article: "When did the central aim of parenting become preparing children for success?" Since the dawn of time, one would think. I doubt that any loving parent sets out to raise an unsuccessful child. But it's oh so easy to cross the line. Just ask Bernard Muir and the Stanford Five parents who did the end run on John Rittman.

[Mick]

Over the last few months, I'd posted several times about Stanford softball and its perfect storm. What attracted me to it as a story is that the parents are at the center of it. I hadn't thought much about it over the past six weeks or so, and then I ran across this post on the Aggie board:
http://aggiesportstalk.yuku.com/topic/54...ggXEFKnaac

It's a fairly pedestrian series of posts, except for two things: first, it claims that the Stanford athletic endowment is the largest in the country at $270 mms., dwarfing the next largest, Noter Dame at $130 mms.; and second, the last post references helicopter parents and a book written by former Stanford Associate Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and Dean of Freshmen, Julie Lythcott-Haims, '85 and Harvard Law School shortly thereafter. She had a short stint in corporate law, then returned to Stanford. Here, Dean Julie gives an interview on her plans shortly before she wrote her book:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/march...32812.html.

Dean Julie's book is titled "How to Raise an Adult," and I imagine that some of the frustration she may have faced dealing with helicopter parents comes out in this book. Not sure if she retired to write the tell-all, but she didn't mention in in the departing interview. She was apparently headed to an MFA in poetry (and took a course in "Creative Non-Fiction" -- would love to hear how that oxymoron works -- field trips to MSNBC and Fox?), then decided to comment on parents:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/books/....html?_r=0

And her LinkedIn page is fairly insistent upon her current role:
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id...cott-Haims

I love the opening line of that article: "When did the central aim of parenting become preparing children for success?" Since the dawn of time, one would think. I doubt that any loving parent sets out to raise an unsuccessful child. But it's oh so easy to cross the line. Just ask Bernard Muir and the Stanford Five parents who did the end run on John Rittman.

[BostonCard]

I don't know... As a parent I feel my job is to prepare my kids for failure by encouraging them to show grit, determination, and resiliency.  Dealing with success is relatively easy, but learning how to bounce back from failure is not.

BC

[BostonCard]

I don't know... As a parent I feel my job is to prepare my kids for failure by encouraging them to show grit, determination, and resiliency.  Dealing with success is relatively easy, but learning how to bounce back from failure is not.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

(and took a course in "Creative Non-Fiction" -- would love to hear how that oxymoron works -- field trips to MSNBC and Fox?)

creative non-fiction -- think similar to "new journalism": presentation of real-life events with literary techniques.

[washingtonismoney]

(and took a course in "Creative Non-Fiction" -- would love to hear how that oxymoron works -- field trips to MSNBC and Fox?)

creative non-fiction -- think similar to "new journalism": presentation of real-life events with literary techniques.

[threepointer]

Here's some rough math.

The $270 million figure was from a Bloomberg article from 2002.  The Athletic Endowment is part of the Merged Endowment Pool (MEP) which is managed by the Stanford Management Company.  In 2002, Stanford's endowment was $7.6 billion.  Last week Stanford announced that the MEP was $22.2 billion. 

Over the period from 2002 to 2015 Stanford raised approximately $9 billion.  So $5.6 billion was return on investment (some on the original 2002 balance of $7.6 billion, some on the $9 billion raise).  Some of those funds raised included funds raised for the Athletic Endowment which was part of the $6.2 billion Stanford Campaign from 2006-2012. 

Which is a long way of saying that the Athletic Endowment is probably somewhere in the range of $400-$450 million at this point.

The Athletic Department also has a separate special situation fund (the DAPER Investment Fund) that is managed separately by a group of VCs and professional investors.  It invests in venture capital, private equity, and other higher risk/higher return investments.  It is used to fund annual and one time capital projects.  5 or 6 years ago, the DAPER fund was somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 million.

 

[threepointer]

Here's some rough math.

The $270 million figure was from a Bloomberg article from 2002.  The Athletic Endowment is part of the Merged Endowment Pool (MEP) which is managed by the Stanford Management Company.  In 2002, Stanford's endowment was $7.6 billion.  Last week Stanford announced that the MEP was $22.2 billion. 

Over the period from 2002 to 2015 Stanford raised approximately $9 billion.  So $5.6 billion was return on investment (some on the original 2002 balance of $7.6 billion, some on the $9 billion raise).  Some of those funds raised included funds raised for the Athletic Endowment which was part of the $6.2 billion Stanford Campaign from 2006-2012. 

Which is a long way of saying that the Athletic Endowment is probably somewhere in the range of $400-$450 million at this point.

The Athletic Department also has a separate special situation fund (the DAPER Investment Fund) that is managed separately by a group of VCs and professional investors.  It invests in venture capital, private equity, and other higher risk/higher return investments.  It is used to fund annual and one time capital projects.  5 or 6 years ago, the DAPER fund was somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 million.

 

[81alum]

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.

[81alum]

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.

[Rally]

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 all 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.

I think you're ignoring a vital point.  This (parents behavior) doesn't start out of the blue in middle school, it starts at birth.  Two generations of families have been influenced by what I consider a disservice from some (many?) childhood and psychology "experts" who, among other things, instructed parents to not say no to children, to avoid competition where there was a possibility of failure, to over-compensate for weaknesses and failings, to instilling in their children that they can do anything they want to do, have anything they want to have, because they are "special."  My wife and I witnessed it when our son was under one year old and we lived at Escondido Village, along with many grad students at the School of Education.  Some of the things we were subtly reprimanded for were ridiculous, in our opinion, including not hosting a birthday party fit for Elvis when he turned one.  Poor thing, missed out on professional clowns, catered meals, elaborate birthday cakes.  The horror.  He also suffered through pre-school, kindergarten, grade school, middle school and high school graduations without a personal limo in sight.  Once, at Escondido Village, a grad student chastised us that he didn't have enough toys and was lacking in stimulation.  His favorite toys were mommy's wooden spoons and mixing bowls (later he graduated to preferring the boxes toys came in to the toys themselves) and his stimulation came for being read to, sung to, danced with and, most importantly, talked to incessantly.  And over the years we watched those kids with the toys and limos grow into sniveling, spoiled, entitled kids.  Now most are sniveling, spoiled, entitled 40-somethings.  Then they tried to out do their parents when it came time to raise their own.  The stated reason, almost every time?  We want him/her to know they are special.  After 18 years of this why would anyone expect it to change when they turn 19?  After all, they might get angry if mom and dad weren't constantly there.  Every one of you who are parents know that a gentle, sudden slap on a well-padded bottom, along with a harsh No! goes along way towards developing a happy, productive member of society.  And isn't that the point?

I'll probably delete this later because it is too old fartish.

[Rally]

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 all 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.

I think you're ignoring a vital point.  This (parents behavior) doesn't start out of the blue in middle school, it starts at birth.  Two generations of families have been influenced by what I consider a disservice from some (many?) childhood and psychology "experts" who, among other things, instructed parents to not say no to children, to avoid competition where there was a possibility of failure, to over-compensate for weaknesses and failings, to instilling in their children that they can do anything they want to do, have anything they want to have, because they are "special."  My wife and I witnessed it when our son was under one year old and we lived at Escondido Village, along with many grad students at the School of Education.  Some of the things we were subtly reprimanded for were ridiculous, in our opinion, including not hosting a birthday party fit for Elvis when he turned one.  Poor thing, missed out on professional clowns, catered meals, elaborate birthday cakes.  The horror.  He also suffered through pre-school, kindergarten, grade school, middle school and high school graduations without a personal limo in sight.  Once, at Escondido Village, a grad student chastised us that he didn't have enough toys and was lacking in stimulation.  His favorite toys were mommy's wooden spoons and mixing bowls (later he graduated to preferring the boxes toys came in to the toys themselves) and his stimulation came for being read to, sung to, danced with and, most importantly, talked to incessantly.  And over the years we watched those kids with the toys and limos grow into sniveling, spoiled, entitled kids.  Now most are sniveling, spoiled, entitled 40-somethings.  Then they tried to out do their parents when it came time to raise their own.  The stated reason, almost every time?  We want him/her to know they are special.  After 18 years of this why would anyone expect it to change when they turn 19?  After all, they might get angry if mom and dad weren't constantly there.  Every one of you who are parents know that a gentle, sudden slap on a well-padded bottom, along with a harsh No! goes along way towards developing a happy, productive member of society.  And isn't that the point?

I'll probably delete this later because it is too old fartish.

[dabigv13]

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.

Agreed.

[dabigv13]

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.

Agreed.

[Rally]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=12948.msg131267#msg131267 date=1443388834]
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.

Agreed.
[/quote]

So, you think the only problem is helicopter parents of children who aspire (or whose parents aspire) to elite universities? 

[Rally]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=12948.msg131267#msg131267 date=1443388834]
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.

Agreed.
[/quote]

So, you think the only problem is helicopter parents of children who aspire (or whose parents aspire) to elite universities? 

[Kathy]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=12948.msg131267#msg131267 date=1443388834]
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 all 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.

I think you're ignoring a vital point.  This (parents behavior) doesn't start out of the blue in middle school, it starts at birth.  Two generations of families have been influenced by what I consider a disservice from some (many?) childhood and psychology "experts" who, among other things, instructed parents to not say no to children, to avoid competition where there was a possibility of failure, to over-compensate for weaknesses and failings, to instilling in their children that they can do anything they want to do, have anything they want to have, because they are "special."  My wife and I witnessed it when our son was under one year old and we lived at Escondido Village, along with many grad students at the School of Education.  Some of the things we were subtly reprimanded for were ridiculous, in our opinion, including not hosting a birthday party fit for Elvis when he turned one.  Poor thing, missed out on professional clowns, catered meals, elaborate birthday cakes.  The horror.  He also suffered through pre-school, kindergarten, grade school, middle school and high school graduations without a personal limo in sight.  Once, at Escondido Village, a grad student chastised us that he didn't have enough toys and was lacking in stimulation.  His favorite toys were mommy' wooden spoons and mixing bowls (later he graduated to preferring the boxes toys came in to the toys themselves) and his stimulation came for being read to, sung to, and, most importantly, talked to incessantly.  And over the years we watched those kids with the toys and limos grow into sniveling, spoiled, entitled kids.  Then they tried to out do their parents when it came time to raise their own.  The stated reason, almost every time?  We want him/her to know they are special.  After 18 years of this why would anyone expect it to change when they turn 19?  After all, they might get angry if mom and dad weren't constantly there.  Every one of you who are parents know that a gentle, sudden slap on a well-padded bottom, along with a harsh No! goes along way towards developing a happy, productive member of society.  And isn't that the point?

I'll probably delete this later because it is too old fartish.
[/quote]

From one old fart to another: don't delete it.

[Kathy]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=12948.msg131267#msg131267 date=1443388834]
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 all 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.

I think you're ignoring a vital point.  This (parents behavior) doesn't start out of the blue in middle school, it starts at birth.  Two generations of families have been influenced by what I consider a disservice from some (many?) childhood and psychology "experts" who, among other things, instructed parents to not say no to children, to avoid competition where there was a possibility of failure, to over-compensate for weaknesses and failings, to instilling in their children that they can do anything they want to do, have anything they want to have, because they are "special."  My wife and I witnessed it when our son was under one year old and we lived at Escondido Village, along with many grad students at the School of Education.  Some of the things we were subtly reprimanded for were ridiculous, in our opinion, including not hosting a birthday party fit for Elvis when he turned one.  Poor thing, missed out on professional clowns, catered meals, elaborate birthday cakes.  The horror.  He also suffered through pre-school, kindergarten, grade school, middle school and high school graduations without a personal limo in sight.  Once, at Escondido Village, a grad student chastised us that he didn't have enough toys and was lacking in stimulation.  His favorite toys were mommy' wooden spoons and mixing bowls (later he graduated to preferring the boxes toys came in to the toys themselves) and his stimulation came for being read to, sung to, and, most importantly, talked to incessantly.  And over the years we watched those kids with the toys and limos grow into sniveling, spoiled, entitled kids.  Then they tried to out do their parents when it came time to raise their own.  The stated reason, almost every time?  We want him/her to know they are special.  After 18 years of this why would anyone expect it to change when they turn 19?  After all, they might get angry if mom and dad weren't constantly there.  Every one of you who are parents know that a gentle, sudden slap on a well-padded bottom, along with a harsh No! goes along way towards developing a happy, productive member of society.  And isn't that the point?

I'll probably delete this later because it is too old fartish.
[/quote]

From one old fart to another: don't delete it.

[winflop]

I don't know... As a parent I feel my job is to prepare my kids for failure by encouraging them to show grit, determination, and resiliency.  Dealing with success is relatively easy, but learning how to bounce back from failure is not.

BC

I think you prepare a child for success when you teach them how to deal with failure.  You can't get up unless you fall down, and if you have never failed then you have never tried.

[winflop]

I don't know... As a parent I feel my job is to prepare my kids for failure by encouraging them to show grit, determination, and resiliency.  Dealing with success is relatively easy, but learning how to bounce back from failure is not.

BC

I think you prepare a child for success when you teach them how to deal with failure.  You can't get up unless you fall down, and if you have never failed then you have never tried.

[Rally]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12948.msg131254#msg131254 date=1443382859]
I don't know... As a parent I feel my job is to prepare my kids for failure by encouraging them to show grit, determination, and resiliency.  Dealing with success is relatively easy, but learning how to bounce back from failure is not.

BC

I think you prepare a child for success when you teach them how to deal with failure.  You can't get up unless you fall down, and if you have never failed then you have never tried.
[/quote]

Plus 1.  The part helicopter parents miss is letting them fail.  Else wise how can you learn?

[Rally]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12948.msg131254#msg131254 date=1443382859]
I don't know... As a parent I feel my job is to prepare my kids for failure by encouraging them to show grit, determination, and resiliency.  Dealing with success is relatively easy, but learning how to bounce back from failure is not.

BC

I think you prepare a child for success when you teach them how to deal with failure.  You can't get up unless you fall down, and if you have never failed then you have never tried.
[/quote]

Plus 1.  The part helicopter parents miss is letting them fail.  Else wise how can you learn?

[dabigv13]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=12948.msg131273#msg131273 date=1443392788]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=12948.msg131267#msg131267 date=1443388834]
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.

Agreed.
[/quote]

So, you think the only problem is helicopter parents of children who aspire (or whose parents aspire) to elite universities?
[/quote]

I wasn't responding to your post. I don't really have the perspective to comment on generational changes in parenting.

81 alum's analysis is spot on though; parents helicopter because they need to in order to get their kids into elite schools. I know if left to my own devices I almost certainly wouldn't have gotten into Stanford. My parents did a great job of instilling a drive to learn and work hard, but I wouldn't have done half the extracurriculars I did without the push they gave me. Maybe I took the spot of an inspired and self-starting kid who had less parental resources...but more likely the kids I was competing with had just as much parental involvement as I did.

[dabigv13]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=12948.msg131273#msg131273 date=1443392788]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=12948.msg131267#msg131267 date=1443388834]
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.

Agreed.
[/quote]

So, you think the only problem is helicopter parents of children who aspire (or whose parents aspire) to elite universities?
[/quote]

I wasn't responding to your post. I don't really have the perspective to comment on generational changes in parenting.

81 alum's analysis is spot on though; parents helicopter because they need to in order to get their kids into elite schools. I know if left to my own devices I almost certainly wouldn't have gotten into Stanford. My parents did a great job of instilling a drive to learn and work hard, but I wouldn't have done half the extracurriculars I did without the push they gave me. Maybe I took the spot of an inspired and self-starting kid who had less parental resources...but more likely the kids I was competing with had just as much parental involvement as I did.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12948.msg131274#msg131274 date=1443393105]
[quote author=dabigv link=topic=12948.msg131273#msg131273 date=1443392788]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=12948.msg131267#msg131267 date=1443388834]
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.

Agreed.
[/quote]

So, you think the only problem is helicopter parents of children who aspire (or whose parents aspire) to elite universities?
[/quote]

I wasn't responding to your post. I don't really have the perspective to comment on generational changes in parenting.

81 alum's analysis is spot on though; parents helicopter because they need to in order to get their kids into elite schools. I know if left to my own devices I almost certainly wouldn't have gotten into Stanford. My parents did a great job of instilling a drive to learn and work hard, but I wouldn't have done half the extracurriculars I did without the push they gave me. Maybe I took the spot of an inspired and self-starting kid who had less parental resources...but more likely the kids I was competing with had just as much parental involvement as I did.
[/quote]

I'm sure you're correct but that isn't my point.  Helicoptering isn't restricted to parents of kids aspiring to elite schools.  To think so is very narrow minded, almost elitist.  There is a larger world out there.  It applies to Boy Scout and Girl Scout advancement, who makes the drill team, beauty pageants, student body offices as low as primary schools, Little League and Lassie League, Girl Scout Cookie sales, Christmas wrap fund raisers, 4-H, you name it.  Elite school admissions has very little to do with it unless that is your only focus.  (I don't mean "your" personally but can think of a better way to say it just now, so please don't take offense.)

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12948.msg131274#msg131274 date=1443393105]
[quote author=dabigv link=topic=12948.msg131273#msg131273 date=1443392788]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=12948.msg131267#msg131267 date=1443388834]
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.

Agreed.
[/quote]

So, you think the only problem is helicopter parents of children who aspire (or whose parents aspire) to elite universities?
[/quote]

I wasn't responding to your post. I don't really have the perspective to comment on generational changes in parenting.

81 alum's analysis is spot on though; parents helicopter because they need to in order to get their kids into elite schools. I know if left to my own devices I almost certainly wouldn't have gotten into Stanford. My parents did a great job of instilling a drive to learn and work hard, but I wouldn't have done half the extracurriculars I did without the push they gave me. Maybe I took the spot of an inspired and self-starting kid who had less parental resources...but more likely the kids I was competing with had just as much parental involvement as I did.
[/quote]

I'm sure you're correct but that isn't my point.  Helicoptering isn't restricted to parents of kids aspiring to elite schools.  To think so is very narrow minded, almost elitist.  There is a larger world out there.  It applies to Boy Scout and Girl Scout advancement, who makes the drill team, beauty pageants, student body offices as low as primary schools, Little League and Lassie League, Girl Scout Cookie sales, Christmas wrap fund raisers, 4-H, you name it.  Elite school admissions has very little to do with it unless that is your only focus.  (I don't mean "your" personally but can think of a better way to say it just now, so please don't take offense.)

[BobK]

Well me point out that the daughter of the biggest helicopter parent on the softball team graduated from Stanford and is now in law school. 

[BobK]

Well me point out that the daughter of the biggest helicopter parent on the softball team graduated from Stanford and is now in law school. 

[Rally]

Well me point out that the daughter of the biggest helicopter parent on the softball team graduated from Stanford and is now in law school.

Which has to do with what?

[Rally]

Well me point out that the daughter of the biggest helicopter parent on the softball team graduated from Stanford and is now in law school.

Which has to do with what?

[81alum]

Helicoptering isn't restricted to parents of kids aspiring to elite schools.  To think so is very narrow minded, almost elitist.  There is a larger world out there.  It applies to Boy Scout and Girl Scout advancement, who makes the drill team, beauty pageants, student body offices as low as primary schools, Little League and Lassie League, Girl Scout Cookie sales, Christmas wrap fund raisers, 4-H, you name it.  Elite school admissions has very little to do with it unless that is your only focus.  (I don't mean "your" personally but can think of a better way to say it just now, so please don't take offense.)

I'm not sure you are entirely correct about this.  I see almost no helicopter parents hovering over my CSU students.  They tend to be older and work part time to be able to afford their tuition.  Many of them are financially independent from their parents.  Many of them worked in high school too and could not have afforded all the college prep stuff or the time for some of the extracurriculars.  A number of them are veterans.  Many are the first from their family to attend college, and just going to college--any college--is a source of enormous pride.  Their parents often lack the language skills and the knowledge of "the system" to coach their kids on college, and they lack the money to shower on structured activities.  No, I don't often see helicopters over my working class students.

Furthermore, right here in Palo Alto, I can say that the really crazy behavior did begin among my kids' friends  in late middle school and high school, as parents began shifting their thinking from the perennial problem of living vicariously through their kids to the additional problem of promoting their kids into an elite college.  If you want to see the ultimate extreme, take a look at what is going on in South Korea, which proves that things can indeed get even worse.  And at times the South Korean education mania spills over here.  We know a number of Korean families who have set up a household here in Palo Alto just to give their kids a better chance of getting in to an elite university.  One parent stays in Korea, one here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gen...tory.html 

That said, I think I would agree with the thrust that this generation in general is more narcissistic and  self-centered--and this probably pertains to more than just the elite college crowd.  I wouldn't attribute this to a generation of Dr. Spock kids so much as the self-absorbed world of video and the internet.  But there is a very real difference in the level of excessive parental involvement for those families that are pushing their kids toward elite colleges.

[81alum]

Helicoptering isn't restricted to parents of kids aspiring to elite schools.  To think so is very narrow minded, almost elitist.  There is a larger world out there.  It applies to Boy Scout and Girl Scout advancement, who makes the drill team, beauty pageants, student body offices as low as primary schools, Little League and Lassie League, Girl Scout Cookie sales, Christmas wrap fund raisers, 4-H, you name it.  Elite school admissions has very little to do with it unless that is your only focus.  (I don't mean "your" personally but can think of a better way to say it just now, so please don't take offense.)

I'm not sure you are entirely correct about this.  I see almost no helicopter parents hovering over my CSU students.  They tend to be older and work part time to be able to afford their tuition.  Many of them are financially independent from their parents.  Many of them worked in high school too and could not have afforded all the college prep stuff or the time for some of the extracurriculars.  A number of them are veterans.  Many are the first from their family to attend college, and just going to college--any college--is a source of enormous pride.  Their parents often lack the language skills and the knowledge of "the system" to coach their kids on college, and they lack the money to shower on structured activities.  No, I don't often see helicopters over my working class students.

Furthermore, right here in Palo Alto, I can say that the really crazy behavior did begin among my kids' friends  in late middle school and high school, as parents began shifting their thinking from the perennial problem of living vicariously through their kids to the additional problem of promoting their kids into an elite college.  If you want to see the ultimate extreme, take a look at what is going on in South Korea, which proves that things can indeed get even worse.  And at times the South Korean education mania spills over here.  We know a number of Korean families who have set up a household here in Palo Alto just to give their kids a better chance of getting in to an elite university.  One parent stays in Korea, one here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gen...tory.html 

That said, I think I would agree with the thrust that this generation in general is more narcissistic and  self-centered--and this probably pertains to more than just the elite college crowd.  I wouldn't attribute this to a generation of Dr. Spock kids so much as the self-absorbed world of video and the internet.  But there is a very real difference in the level of excessive parental involvement for those families that are pushing their kids toward elite colleges.

[dabigv13]

When old people talk about how narcissistic and self centered the younger generation is, I think the standard retort is how the old farts squeezed all the money out of the economy, and are spending all the social security, and actually how self centered is that and blah blah blah right?

Well, your parents probably came back from WWII and thought they were raising a bunch of snot nosed brats who didn't know what it was like to actually work for a proper living.

Actually, I think my little sister and her friends are really narcissistic and this twitter thing is just outrageous. I'm guessing the whole process starts roughly at age 22.

[dabigv13]

When old people talk about how narcissistic and self centered the younger generation is, I think the standard retort is how the old farts squeezed all the money out of the economy, and are spending all the social security, and actually how self centered is that and blah blah blah right?

Well, your parents probably came back from WWII and thought they were raising a bunch of snot nosed brats who didn't know what it was like to actually work for a proper living.

Actually, I think my little sister and her friends are really narcissistic and this twitter thing is just outrageous. I'm guessing the whole process starts roughly at age 22.

[82lsju]

Which is a long way of saying that the Athletic Endowment is probably somewhere in the range of $400-$450 million at this point.

this looks reasonable given the 2013-14 Athletics annual report

http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=208953761

that showed an endowment payout of $25.2 million, assuming a 5% payout that would put the endowment at ~$500 million

[82lsju]

Which is a long way of saying that the Athletic Endowment is probably somewhere in the range of $400-$450 million at this point.

this looks reasonable given the 2013-14 Athletics annual report

http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.db...=208953761

that showed an endowment payout of $25.2 million, assuming a 5% payout that would put the endowment at ~$500 million

[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.

[CornFed]

Two anecdotes come to mind.

1.  A friend of mine is a pretty well-adjusted fellow (even though he is a C.al alum) and lived in Belvedere.  When his son was about ten, he came in to tell his father that his friends and he were going to play some pick up baseball at the local park.  He asked for a ride and Jack took him over to the field.  He pulled into the adjoining parking lot and his son got out and ran over to join his friends.  As he was starting to pull away he noticed that the other parents had gotten out of their cars and were standing outside the fence of the field and were watching the boys get ready.  His curiosity got the best of him and he parked and went over to observe.  The boys were having some difficulty figuring out how to set the teams and it went on for a little bit.  Then it started.  One of the fathers interceded to instruct the players in a process for choosing sides.  Then another started giving input to one of the teams about how they should determine who should play which position.  Another father took over setting the line up.  By the end of my friend's observations, a half dozen adult men had taken over their sons' playtime and were running the whole operation.  He left, disgusted.

2.  A very close friend of my wife's whose daughter was in one of the C.al State schools wrote her papers for her.  Not even just editing or guiding.  She fully composed all of her daughters term papers for the full four years of her college experience.  She even joked that she was really angry when one of the papers received only a "B" and she wanted her daughter to go in to argue with the professor about the grade (!).

[CornFed]

Two anecdotes come to mind.

1.  A friend of mine is a pretty well-adjusted fellow (even though he is a C.al alum) and lived in Belvedere.  When his son was about ten, he came in to tell his father that his friends and he were going to play some pick up baseball at the local park.  He asked for a ride and Jack took him over to the field.  He pulled into the adjoining parking lot and his son got out and ran over to join his friends.  As he was starting to pull away he noticed that the other parents had gotten out of their cars and were standing outside the fence of the field and were watching the boys get ready.  His curiosity got the best of him and he parked and went over to observe.  The boys were having some difficulty figuring out how to set the teams and it went on for a little bit.  Then it started.  One of the fathers interceded to instruct the players in a process for choosing sides.  Then another started giving input to one of the teams about how they should determine who should play which position.  Another father took over setting the line up.  By the end of my friend's observations, a half dozen adult men had taken over their sons' playtime and were running the whole operation.  He left, disgusted.

2.  A very close friend of my wife's whose daughter was in one of the C.al State schools wrote her papers for her.  Not even just editing or guiding.  She fully composed all of her daughters term papers for the full four years of her college experience.  She even joked that she was really angry when one of the papers received only a "B" and she wanted her daughter to go in to argue with the professor about the grade (!).