Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
Momniscient
Helicopter Parents
April 30, 2013 at 11:25 AM

So, I usually laugh and poke the faddish parenting philosophies. I was listening to a local NPR station this morning and there were a few people in the studio just speaking casually about their experiences. One had a little brother that was going on his first professional job interview and they were talking about the three biggest things that cause a 'millenial' *that's the new buzzword for the newest college grads* to flunk a job interview. According to the conversation in the studio it was this:

#3: texting, smart phoning and social mediaing during said job interview (does this really surprise anyone?)

#2: Failure to address superiors as such.

#1: Parents of job applicants... as in parents who attend job interviews and interfere on behalf of precious Johnny or shining star Judy.


I was shocked. Literally shocked. After all my time on CM I really shouldn't be, but... REALLY? Has it really gone that far? Does anyone really think this is acceptable?

As an aside, I have a friend who teaches UPPER level college courses who says she has parents in her office, on her phone and in her email on a weekly basis asking, complaining and cajoling about their college age children... I'm talking grad students here.

Is this really something we as a society are moving toward as not only an accepted but encouraged form of parenting? It sort of feels that way when I read some of the stuff I read here...

Discuss.




Replies

  • Momniscient
    May 2, 2013 at 5:12 PM

    I tend to wonder if this is the case with moms who breastfeed and cosleep and refuse medical advice etc well into childhood...

    So yeah, I can see it.

    Quoting Sisteract:

    I am telling you, these are the folks that treat 16,17, 18 year olds like 5 year olds...It's all about "control".

    Quoting ChristyG2012:

    I find it pretty ironic that everyone is so openly disgusted by this idea but half of cafemom will be doing this themselves in a few years!

    But yes, it is very sad that this is what society has come to...



  • Shelly126
    May 2, 2013 at 7:53 PM
    My mom was behind me 110% she still is, but hell no did she ever call a college professor, an employer or go on a job interview with me! Nor would I do that for my sons, I will be behind them, coach them & encourage them 110% but part of that is teaching them independence and letting go!
  • GaleJ
    by GaleJ
    May 3, 2013 at 3:38 AM

    Well I must say that in some ways I see this differently. While I understand the basic objections being raised in reaction to what is being called "helicopter parenting" I do have some thoughts that run counter in some areas. 

    I do not understand why it is so objectionable for parents of students at university to be involved rather closely with the student's situation including interactions with university staff and faculty. The university has no problem with the parents picking up a share or indeed all of the bill so why shouldn't they be involved in the application of their money? Furthermore these students can be young, some just seventeen or eighteen, and parents are still responsible for them. Now I do understand that these young people are at university to begin the process of stepping away from their parents and becoming independent but I don't see that as being immediate or automatic. There is something to be said for the idea that the family's interest in the young person's life is important and I don't have a problem with the idea that parents can contribute wisdom, knowledge, and experience their children have yet to acquire. 

    Now playing devil's advocate I will throw out another situation. We see these young athletes bringing parents, coaches, and agents into negotiations so why is it substantially different for young people negotiating a new job. Executives may be represented by "head hunters" or by lawyers. In such cases the idea, as I'm suggesting for the purposes of discussion, is that the young person is inexperienced and may need or at least benefit from the presence and advice of someone other than themselves. Perhaps they should have agents or lawyers? To be fair it isn't as though companies don't take advantage of the inexperience of such job seekers.

    I don't necessarily see this as a function of being grown up or not, I see some of this as being appropriate to the realities. When the student fails do the parents get a refund or get to just drop the debt? When the young person is taken advantage of in hiring it is often the family that must pick up the slack as it were. Yet somehow the idea that the parents and families might want to be involved is objectionable, perhaps we need to rethink the basic concepts.

  • Carmel63
    May 3, 2013 at 7:11 AM

    With some exceptions, it is inappropriate for a parent to be closely involved with teachers and staff at the high school level.  My daughter is a senior, and managed to graduate and get into a more selective college with out my ever contacting a teacher or administrator. If a parent has not had their child handle communications with their teachers from the age of 14, I can understand how their child would not have the skill or confidence.  The parent has done their child a disservice.  To think that it is remotely appropriate to contract a university professor under any circumstance is mind boggling.  A university student is 18 when they begin freshman year, and an adult.  They need to take responsibility for their education.

    My daughter began her first job.  She did her job search, and filled out the applications on her own.  I had her get a job not because we needed the $9.00 and hour, but so she could experience what was entailed in getting and keeping a minimum wage job.  That is a better learning experience than having mommy take care of it.

    Quoting GaleJ:

    Well I must say that in some ways I see this differently. While I understand the basic objections being raised in reaction to what is being called "helicopter parenting" I do have some thoughts that run counter in some areas. 

    I do not understand why it is so objectionable for parents of students at university to be involved rather closely with the student's situation including interactions with university staff and faculty. The university has no problem with the parents picking up a share or indeed all of the bill so why shouldn't they be involved in the application of their money? Furthermore these students can be young, some just seventeen or eighteen, and parents are still responsible for them. Now I do understand that these young people are at university to begin the process of stepping away from their parents and becoming independent but I don't see that as being immediate or automatic. There is something to be said for the idea that the family's interest in the young person's life is important and I don't have a problem with the idea that parents can contribute wisdom, knowledge, and experience their children have yet to acquire. 

    Now playing devil's advocate I will throw out another situation. We see these young athletes bringing parents, coaches, and agents into negotiations so why is it substantially different for young people negotiating a new job. Executives may be represented by "head hunters" or by lawyers. In such cases the idea, as I'm suggesting for the purposes of discussion, is that the young person is inexperienced and may need or at least benefit from the presence and advice of someone other than themselves. Perhaps they should have agents or lawyers? To be fair it isn't as though companies don't take advantage of the inexperience of such job seekers.

    I don't necessarily see this as a function of being grown up or not, I see some of this as being appropriate to the realities. When the student fails do the parents get a refund or get to just drop the debt? When the young person is taken advantage of in hiring it is often the family that must pick up the slack as it were. Yet somehow the idea that the parents and families might want to be involved is objectionable, perhaps we need to rethink the basic concepts.



  • GaleJ
    by GaleJ
    May 3, 2013 at 7:44 AM
    Not everyone approaches things in the same way. At the school my son attended, a Montessori school that included children from the age of two through the equivalent of high school, parental involvement was required, including having at least one parent take a morals and ethics class with their child. While I agree that one should afford their child every opportunity to develop independent skills including communication that doesn't preclude parental involvement in any way.

    My son obtained a very competitive internship at fourteen through a long application process completely on his own and developed it into a paid position by the time he was sixteen, and finished the equivalent of high school at seventeen. He got into his school of first choice for university as well but nonetheless his father and I stayed involved and maintained close contact with all his various involvements so that we could offer guidance as appropriate and if we had ever felt the situation required it we would have made whatever contacts we thought necessary.


    Quoting Carmel63:

    With some exceptions, it is inappropriate for a parent to be closely involved with teachers and staff at the high school level.  My daughter is a senior, and managed to graduate and get into a more selective college with out my ever contacting a teacher or administrator. If a parent has not had their child handle communications with their teachers from the age of 14, I can understand how their child would not have the skill or confidence.  The parent has done their child a disservice.  To think that it is remotely appropriate to contract a university professor under any circumstance is mind boggling.  A university student is 18 when they begin freshman year, and an adult.  They need to take responsibility for their education.

    My daughter began her first job.  She did her job search, and filled out the applications on her own.  I had her get a job not because we needed the $9.00 and hour, but so she could experience what was entailed in getting and keeping a minimum wage job.  That is a better learning experience than having mommy take care of it.


    Quoting GaleJ:

    Well I must say that in some ways I see this differently. While I understand the basic objections being raised in reaction to what is being called "helicopter parenting" I do have some thoughts that run counter in some areas. 

    I do not understand why it is so objectionable for parents of students at university to be involved rather closely with the student's situation including interactions with university staff and faculty. The university has no problem with the parents picking up a share or indeed all of the bill so why shouldn't they be involved in the application of their money? Furthermore these students can be young, some just seventeen or eighteen, and parents are still responsible for them. Now I do understand that these young people are at university to begin the process of stepping away from their parents and becoming independent but I don't see that as being immediate or automatic. There is something to be said for the idea that the family's interest in the young person's life is important and I don't have a problem with the idea that parents can contribute wisdom, knowledge, and experience their children have yet to acquire. 

    Now playing devil's advocate I will throw out another situation. We see these young athletes bringing parents, coaches, and agents into negotiations so why is it substantially different for young people negotiating a new job. Executives may be represented by "head hunters" or by lawyers. In such cases the idea, as I'm suggesting for the purposes of discussion, is that the young person is inexperienced and may need or at least benefit from the presence and advice of someone other than themselves. Perhaps they should have agents or lawyers? To be fair it isn't as though companies don't take advantage of the inexperience of such job seekers.

    I don't necessarily see this as a function of being grown up or not, I see some of this as being appropriate to the realities. When the student fails do the parents get a refund or get to just drop the debt? When the young person is taken advantage of in hiring it is often the family that must pick up the slack as it were. Yet somehow the idea that the parents and families might want to be involved is objectionable, perhaps we need to rethink the basic concepts.





  • Momniscient
    May 3, 2013 at 11:41 PM

    It isn't the Universities responsibility to monitor where money comes from.

    Paying for something does not guarantee rights and in this case the law states that parents have no rights due to privacy issues. Why would it ever be appropriate for a parent to monitor in an adult setting?

    If a parent is still responsible for a child being sent off to college, then perhaps that parent needs to keep their angel away for a year.

    There is nothing being said that a family cannot be active in a person's life. There is just everything being said that they shouldn't interfere where it is completely inappropriate to do so. My parents stayed very involved with me. They never once thought it appropriate or advisable to call a professor and insist they could interfere in a college course.

    Why is it appropriate to the realities? Because a fad has infringed on reality? Because the real world is actually going to look very negatively on little Johnny brings his parents. As evidenced by the #1 reason little Johnny isn't getting jobs.

    Quoting GaleJ:

    Well I must say that in some ways I see this differently. While I understand the basic objections being raised in reaction to what is being called "helicopter parenting" I do have some thoughts that run counter in some areas. 

    I do not understand why it is so objectionable for parents of students at university to be involved rather closely with the student's situation including interactions with university staff and faculty. The university has no problem with the parents picking up a share or indeed all of the bill so why shouldn't they be involved in the application of their money? Furthermore these students can be young, some just seventeen or eighteen, and parents are still responsible for them. Now I do understand that these young people are at university to begin the process of stepping away from their parents and becoming independent but I don't see that as being immediate or automatic. There is something to be said for the idea that the family's interest in the young person's life is important and I don't have a problem with the idea that parents can contribute wisdom, knowledge, and experience their children have yet to acquire. 

    Now playing devil's advocate I will throw out another situation. We see these young athletes bringing parents, coaches, and agents into negotiations so why is it substantially different for young people negotiating a new job. Executives may be represented by "head hunters" or by lawyers. In such cases the idea, as I'm suggesting for the purposes of discussion, is that the young person is inexperienced and may need or at least benefit from the presence and advice of someone other than themselves. Perhaps they should have agents or lawyers? To be fair it isn't as though companies don't take advantage of the inexperience of such job seekers.

    I don't necessarily see this as a function of being grown up or not, I see some of this as being appropriate to the realities. When the student fails do the parents get a refund or get to just drop the debt? When the young person is taken advantage of in hiring it is often the family that must pick up the slack as it were. Yet somehow the idea that the parents and families might want to be involved is objectionable, perhaps we need to rethink the basic concepts.


  • Thewife06
    May 6, 2013 at 7:27 PM
    I was waiting around for my last paycheck at an old job in order to go back to my home state but the owner was being a bitch about it. There was a bad blizzard expected to start the day I was due for my paycheck so I had asked if there was any way possible to get my check and not cash it until that day so I could get out of the state before the blizzard hit.
    I wasn't coping well with my husband being gone and needed to go back home. She said it wasn't her problem and she wouldn't mail it to me either. She told me another week wasn't going to kill me and to get over it.

    My mom called me to see when I wa coming home and I told her I couldn't for another week and a half to two weeks, I had to wait for my paycheck. She found out that the reason I didn't use direct deposit was because my check was hand written. Okay, end of convo. We talk a bit more and then get off the phone.

    A couple hours later my old boss called me and told me that she had changed her mind, come get my check and drive safely. I was so HAPPY. She told me she had thought about it and if her daughter had been in my position she wouldn't want her to be alone and miserable. I cashed the check and drive home.

    1800 miles later my mom said "glad she changed we mind after things were put into perspective for her." O.o my mom is NOT the helicopter type at all. I was mortified but glad too. I still can't believe she looked up the business online and called and chewed out my old boss.... I feel horrible for people who have parents who are like that all the time!

Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts