The helicopter parent is dead. Long live the snowplow parent!
We've all heard of helicopter parents, mothers and fathers who hovers over a child's every decision and action. Evidently helicopter parents have evolved into the snowplow parent s "who determinedly clears a path for their child and shove aside any obstacle they perceive in the way."
So says Craig Lambert in an article in this month's issue of Harvard Magazine. The article, Nonstop: Today's superhero undergraduates do 3,000 things at 150%, detailing the frenetic pace and relentless ambition of today's undergraduates is by turns horrifying and depressing.
Students today routinely sprint through jam-packed daily schedules, tackling big servings of academic work plus giant helpings of extracurricular activity in a frenetic tizzy of commitments. They gaze at their Blackberries ... to field the digital traffic: e-mail and text messages, phone calls, Web access, and their calendars. Going or gone are late-night bull sessions with roommates and leisurely two-hour lunches ...
There’s a wide consensus that today’s undergraduates make up the most talented, accomplished group of polymaths ever assembled in Harvard Yard: there’s nothing surprising about meeting a first-chair cellist in the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra who is also a formidable racer for the cycling club, or a student doing original research on interstellar dark matter who organized a relief effort in sub-Saharan Africa...
The paradox is that students now live in such a blur of activity that idle moments for such introspection are vanishing. The French film director Jean Renoir once declared, “The foundation of all civilization is loitering,” saluting those unstructured chunks of time that give rise to creative ideas. If Renoir is right, and if Harvard students are among the leaders of the future, then civilization is on the precipice ...
What's driving this frenetic activity? Relentless ambition that starts surprisingly early:
Busy parents book them into things constantly—violin lessons, ballet lessons, swimming teams. ... Dingman [dean of freshmen] notes that, “Starting at an earlier age, students feel that their free time should be taken up with purposeful activities...
Home life has changed in ways that would seem to undercut children’s development of autonomy. There was a time when children did their own homework. Now parents routinely “help” them with assignments ... Youngsters formerly played sports and games with other children on a sandlot or pickup basis, not in leagues organized, coached, and officiated by adults ... Once, college applicants typically wrote their own applications, including the essays; today, an army of high-paid consultants, coaches, and editors is available to orchestrate and massage the admissions effort.
Parents have created this culture. As Lambert explains, " The strategizing starts early; today’s parents groom their children for high achievement in ways that set in motion the culture of scheduled lives and nonstop activity... "
While "snowplow parents" seem to be a new phenomenon, I suspect that are just a variation on a phenomenon as old as recorded history: wealthy parents ensuring children's success by paving the way with money and social connections. The prep school has been replaced by the public high school with multiple AP courses, the European grand tour has been replaced by the summer trips to far off lands, the social clubs replaced with the National Honor Society as the reward for extensive tutoring, special courses and advanced summer programs. Money, copious amounts of it, is usually required.
Sure anyone can go to public school, but very few can afford to live in the communities with the best schools; schools are usually funded by property taxes and estate sized homes for wealthy families provide an excellent tax base. Those fabulous summer trips to work on a dig in Egypt or study intensive Italian in Florence cost a fortune. And tutors, special courses and advanced study at college programs designed for high school students don't come cheap.
It used to be that money and social connections assured a child's success. Now actual merit is required, but money and social connections pave the way just as they always did. An outstanding athlete requires talent, but talent can honed with private coaches and exclusive leagues. To become a brilliant scientist requires brilliance, but a summer working in the award winning lab of Dad's medical colleague gives a teen an undeniable advantage. And woe to the child who has not devoted serious time to "social action," time that children of modest means must spend at work in order to help their families make ends meet.
Not only do parents script their children's lives and pay for every possible advantage, they run roughshod over anyone and anything that dares to stand in the way. It's bad enough that they will not back teachers in ensuring good behavior in schools, but it is ridiculous that they expect to be able to call a college to "check up" on their sophomore, and it is downright harmful that some come along to job negotiations or try to amend grades in law school.
Snowplow parents forget that their principle job is not to make sure that a child is successful, but to make sure that a child becomes a competent adult; the success will follow if it is merited. Any parent who is calling their child's law school professor has no faith that the child can perform even the most basic tasks of adulthood, hardly surprising since the parents never taught them how.
Snowplow parents believe they are helping their children, but in many cases they are hurting them. They are depriving them of the opportunity of gaining competence by overcoming disappointment or by striving to reach goals instead of having the goals slid to within easy reach. How will these children make their way in the world when their parents are gone? How will these children learn to value themselves for who they are instead of what they achieve? And how will these children handle the disappointment of realizing that it may not always be possible to achieve what they desire?
Parents should be active and involved in their children's lives. And parents sometimes have to run interference for children, particularly when children are young and vulnerable to the whims of teachers and coaches who may be cruel or unfair. But that does not require a snowplow, it doesn't even require a shovel. It requires a more subtle tool such as a broom, one that gets smaller and smaller as the years pass until it finally fades away altogether.
A child in college should be competent enough to manage anything that comes along outside the realm of a true disaster like sexual harassment on the part of a professor, or a roommate who is mentally ill, in other words, very rare occurrences. If a parent cannot trust a child to manage on his own at college or beyond, then something is wrong, not with the child, but with the parent, who failed to ensure that the child gradually learned to handle the basic tasks of adulthood.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MissingK8
aliquot
Roger Fallihee
madcelt
Norwonk
John Moore
Salon.com
Comments
"Mind talking to my wife about this?"
What would she think if she read the post? Or would she merely be angry with you for pointing it out?
But shifting the focus to parents seems a little off-center. Most of them, regardless of wealth, are probably driving themselves and their children into a Type A frenzy in only trying to meet the bar, not raise it. I find it oddly ironic and a bit funny that this article appears in Harvard Magazine. How many students did Harvard accept last year based on the amount of time they lent to creative thought? My guess would be exactly none, but I could be wrong.
I'm glad you shared this. It's an important thing to think about. Though, I still can't help but laugh a little and feel bad for the families being criticized here by the very institution they honor with their desire to attend.
"this snowplow technique has been neccessitated by the exclusivity of the elite schools that have set the criteria for entrance into their hallowed halls."
These schools have always been exclusive, but parents have not always micromanaged their children's every move.
Dingman, the freshman dean, had an interesting observation for which he will probably be pilloried:
Some of the impetus for this is probably “overcompensation,” explains Dingman. “With more and more families having both parents working, there’s some guilt, and there’s a sense that ‘When I can be available to you, I’m going to make all things happen for you.’ There’s no recognition that by stepping up to clear the path, they’re really handicapping their sons and daughters, making them unaware that they actually have the capacities to do things themselves.”
Most universities want only the best of the best of the best - be it athletes or academics. That's great and to be expected. But Harvard shouldn't critique students and their parents for trying to achieve the very thing they now require.
The problem is, that snowplow parenting is so damn easy to fall into!
My son has learning disabilities. He uses a keyboard in class, and the computer at home because handwriting is extraordinarily difficult.
About a month ago, I had to completely stop typing for him. If he was feeling overwhelmed and angry, sometimes I'd step in and make him talk while I typed. But then I start editing. Fixing his run-on sentences, making it sound better. I edit books for a living!
But whose work is this? I can pass the 6th grade just fine. So, now I will be a human spelling checker for those words that get through the computer spell checker (that's "muscles," not "mussels"), and that's it. The teachers at school need to see what he can do, not what I can do.
And we all realized that no one at home is happy if the kids are overbooked. They need time to play alone, to mess around, to play outside with the neighborhood kids. They need weekend days open to have fun or go skiing with mom and dad. That organized sports are a grind and no fun after a while.
Things that got dropped this year to open up the schedule? Soccer, girl scouts, and guitar lessons. Yes, music is enriching, but not if he hates it. Yes, girl scouts is fun, but not if it's one more damn thing to rush off to.
Perhaps when college comes, my children won't be accomplished enough. That's OK.
"But Harvard shouldn't critique students and their parents for trying to achieve the very thing they now require."
There are two issues. The first is how talented, high achieving students compete with each other. The second is how snowplow parents put their own needs for control over the needs of children to learn to negotiate adulthood.
Harvard is not creating the out of control competitiveness and relentless ambition.
Snowplow parents exist everywhere, not simply among high achievers. In fact, they can be equally destructive when they fail to recognize the real abilities and limitations of their own children and try to clear away the "obstacles" like actually having to study to get good grades by attempting to bully the teacher into giving good grades regardless of performance.
"But whose work is this? I can pass the 6th grade just fine."
You made me laugh. My kids have heard me say something similar many times over the years.
What will be the ultimate outcomes for all of these kids? We really have no idea. Probably some of those who rode in the best helicopters will ride on to great success. Others will burn out, will rebel, will find themselves unable to function as independent adults or as caregivers when the helicopter breaks down and needs servicing. Some of those without helicopters will have the moxie to be incredibly successful, others will meet obstacles due to their lack of credentials and connections. Most of the people in both groups will probably just go on to live their lives with all the seemingly random twists of fate and decisions in the moment that put most of us in a place right now we never imagined while we were in high school.
I take issue with this statement to 1_i_M:
Harvard is not creating the out of control competitiveness and relentless ambition.
Sure they are. Not just Harvard alone, but all of the high level universities. They are the ones that decided to factor all of these extras in to their admissions decisions. They are the ones who decided if one activity was good, 5 were better. They could just as easily say:
Here is a list of extracurricular activities:
- Academic clubs
- Academic competitions
- Academic research
- Athletics
- Non-Academic clubs
- Social services
- Travel
- Work experience
We'll only give you "credit" in the application weighting process for up to two of these. So, more is not better. We are looking for students who care about what they do and do only what they care about, not who are overstressed and overscheduled trying to do 10 things a day that they have no interest in because it will "look good."
Think we'll ever see that admissions process?
However, for those of us in the vast spaces of the west, without the old money and connections, there is indeed a lot of pressure to do what it takes to ensure our kids have the same opportunities as those on the coasts, as long as it doesn't mean doing it for them. My team teacher commented at an IEP for one of our gifted students that the mom's writing had certainly improved over the last two years. She just blushed and laughed...
"We'll only give you "credit" in the application weighting process for up to two of these. So, more is not better."
More, in and of itself, is NOT better. Selective colleges can easily tell the difference between kids who rack up activities that the barely participate in and those who passionately pursue a variety of activities. They generally seek out those who are exceedingly accomplished at every activity they pursue (state class or even national class athletes, state level involvement in organizations and social action, original research done in a university laboratory, prizes in national science competitions).
The competition has spun out of control at the top because the kids at the top are desperately trying to outdo each other, and the resources to do so are more widely available. What's particularly distressing is that the competition occurs at the college level. The reality is that if you are at Harvard, you are not going to have trouble getting into professional school or getting a job at Goldman-Sachs, so there's no reason to keep piling up activities as if that mattered. It doesn't. It's just that no one can stop.
The reason why we don't allow our children the opportunity to fail is because the cost of failure has become so high. In my upper- middle class white suburban neighborhood, it is actually impossible to get admitted to Harvard or Stanford with a single B. One. (The exception, of course, is for sports recruits, which provides a whole different track of snowplowing). Doubt my assertion? Unfortunately the evidence is provided by the Naviance system, which large competitive school districts like our use to track all admissions and acceptances. Type in a university, and you will see a graph of the test scores and GPA's of the admitted and the denied. For the top tier schools, the graphs are all the same- not a single green dot (admitted) below the perfect GPA line.
Why? A sad consequence of the well-meaning attempt to democratize the elite universities has been the decision that the white suburban child adds little to the diversity of the university. We, the snowplow mothers, are parents of the children that will not be given one single break. Yes, Harvard admits children that get B's, lots of them. They live, however, in North Dakota (geographic diversity) central L.A. (economic disadvantage) or Miami (ethnicity). Here in Land Rover territory, the kids know both the stakes and the performance required. At this point, the performance required exceeds that which any 16 year old could accomplish, unaided. A perfect GPA is what you start with. From there, perhaps a published scientific article, a first chair in the orchestra, and on and on...
Our children are not lazy, or immature. In fact, they are so mature and hard-working it breaks my heart. If anything, they have been denied their childhood, literally becoming factories of academic performance.
Often, in Biology, behavior that looks maladaptive or destructive can be explained, once the environment and circumstances are well understood. Could it not be, Amy, that we snowplow because we are doing what is best for our children, given these conditions? I notice that you have the word Harvard twice in your short bio. Every time a middle aged person cites this decades-old achievement, my daughters get the message: This is important. This is how the world values people. Step up the the plate. Practice that cello concerto, study the SAT book again, memorize your Latin. For three straight years she did just that, like a machine. And I was in the front of the car, driving.
I didn't go to Harvard. I went to a small, expensive regional liberal arts college, and I did it on a merit scholarship. Otherwise I would have been at a state university, given my parents' budget.
I was a top tier student, but didn't have the perfect 4.0. I did a lot of the requisite activities for college applications (25 years ago), but I did them because I loved them. I was an assistant Girl Scout leader in high school because it was fun. I played in the school band and got a decent score at the state solo competition in my instrument because I liked to play. By Harvard's standards (I didn't apply) I'm sure all of my scores would have gotten me in in a heartbeat if I'd been from North Dakota or Miami, as you said, but I wasn't. And I'm white.
That said, I could choose to be a snowplow mom to my kids now. And I'm just not going to choose that path. I totally understand and respect why you're doing it, and you're right, suburban white kids will not get one single break, ever. I'm also suburban and white, as are my kids.
As an adult, I've worked in many companies, at many jobs. Although I've not been a manager, I've participated on many hiring committees, and I've screened thousands of resumes.
In the world I live in (definitely white collar, usually high tech), unless it's Harvard, the college does not matter. Most of the time, the actual degree does not matter either. What matters is that the person got a degree, in anything, and saw that degree through to the finish. That's 10% of the game.
What matters after that, 90%, is the person's work. I want to see the portfolio pieces. I want to know about the projects. Could I work with them? Is she full of herself? Is he a jerk? Is he a decent person who will pull his weight and behave with good grace? Can she demonstrate that she knows anything about X technology or Y type of project? Has he done anything similar to this before? That's where the rubber meets the road. The degree is by and large irrelevant other than it exists. It's a screening tool. It tells me that this applicant can see something through even if it's tedious, annoying, or seems like parts of it are irrelevant. All degrees have parts we don't like. Can this person power through and do it anyway?
I don't want to trade my childrens' childhoods for a ticket to Harvard, Stanford, or Yale. I look at the trade-off, and I don't think it's worth the incredibly high cost of every waking minute of one's high school years, and likely many years before that. If one of my kids chooses that path on his or her own, I'll help in any way I can. But from where I sit, State U is a better option.
But, you're from Harvard, and your kids are going there. I'm honestly curious. Why is it worth that price?
"The reason why we don't allow our children the opportunity to fail is because the cost of failure has become so high."
For whom? For the children who could be successful at any of a number of colleges or for the parents who view the children's achievements as their own?
Let's be honest here. No child "needs" to go to Harvard, but plenty of Harvard parents want desperately to be able to write into Harvard Magazine and announce that their children are admitted.
This is all about the parents wanting what's good for them, not what's good for the children.
"it is actually impossible to get admitted to Harvard or Stanford with a single B."
First of all, that's simply untrue. Second, even if it were true, so what? Why do you think your child is entitled to go, and that it is your job to make sure that he or she gets in?
Moreover, it would be bad enough if the snowplow parents pushed their children into Harvard, but,what's worse is that they are pushing them after they are already in. That has nothing to do with whether the children will be successful.
Any Harvard graduate who works hard can get into virtually any graduate school or get almost any job. Snowplow parents aren't looking for success as conventionally understood; they're looking for success as THEY understand it, which means being stupendously successful, preferably in national terms.
"Could it not be, Amy, that we snowplow because we are doing what is best for our children, given these conditions?"
No, you're doing what's best for YOU. You need your child to go to Harvard because anything less is not good enough for YOU. Nothing, and I mean nothing, justifies calling college professors, picking children's courses, going to job interviews with children, etc. It is just the upscale version of living through children instead of allowing them to live for themselves, of viewing children as a way to enhance one's own self esteem instead of loving them and being proud of them regardless of where they go to college.
There's a reason they don't put your alma mater on your tombstone. It's because that's not what's most important in life.
I said "In the world I live in (definitely white collar, usually high tech), unless it's Harvard, the college does not matter."
And, if I were on a hiring committee, and saw Harvard or Stanford on a resume, I'd raise my eyebrows. I'd think "Hmm, interesting." It might get the person higher in the stack. But when it comes to making that hiring decision, I still stand by my assertion that the degree is 10% of the equation. If a person has a degree from Harvard but doesn't have the right experience, I'm not going to recommend that we hire them. I'll take State U. plus experience any day.
Not to get a job, as it seems to have been reduced to by some posters. College is more than a credential that you put on a resume. For me, going to Harvard was the Wizard of Oz experience that changed my world from black and white to technicolor. Everyone meets close, lifelong friends at college. Never in my life have I been among such a group of brilliant, thoughtful, creative personalities. I know, well, people that I would characterize as heroes, people who are changing the world. And I think that I know so many because I went to Harvard. Of course, every university has some brilliant, inspirational students -- but not in this concentration. The amazing thing about Harvard (and Princeton...) is that everyone (okay, a few exceptions) has such intensity. A classroom discussion with 15 passionate kids who have all done the reading has a completely different momentum than one with 13 coasters and 2 enthusiasts. And when you are around that distillation of quality, you become a better person. You force yourself to go beyond the obvious, to think a little bit harder, to not take the easy way out. Maybe, it becomes a habit you keep with you after you leave. Yes, Amy, children could be successful at other colleges, depending on how you define success. I think, though, that I am a better person because of the schools I went to, and I want my children to find that best version of themselves, too.
Amy, I think we need to define "snowplowing." There is a world of difference between going to a grown child's job interview and shuttling them every morning to early bird chemistry so they can take AP sophomore year. The first assumes the child's incompetence, while the second drives the child, perhaps beyond their competence. When I say I speak for the snowplowers, I am using the second definition, suggested by Lambert: " The strategizing starts early; today’s parents groom their children for high achievement in ways that set in motion the culture of scheduled lives and nonstop activity... " I completely agree with you that nothing would ever justify calling my college child's professor- I think that two very different phenomena are being lumped together. The undergraduates are not doing 3,000 thing at 150% because there mommy is with them. They are doing 3,000 things because after spending high school taking 5 accelerated majors, learning Swahili at the local college, co-ordinating the cancer walk, and building houses for humanity, they know of no other way to live. And that, Amy, is driven by the schools.
You say that there is a reason they don't put your alma matter on your tombstone, because it is not what is important in your life. I wonder. I met my husband at Harvard. When he got cancer, his classmates got him a drug that was not available in the United States. In the meanwhile, he joined a small start-up in Silicon Valley with some other classmates. This was in 1995. His success enabled me to quit work, so I could be at home, financially secure, with my children after he died. I think that Harvard was an important thing in my life, and in his.
And again, I must note that you cite your Harvard credentials twice in your short bio, though you appear to no longer have any affiliation with the school.
Froggy, I appreciate and respect your decision not to trade your children's childhood for a ticket to Harvard. That's a pretty accurate assessment of the situation. I have abetted the trading of my children's childhood. I believe that the gain will be realized for the rest of their lives, and, in the end, will offset the loss. As with any investment decision, only time will tell.
"You say that there is a reason they don't put your alma matter on your tombstone, because it is not what is important in your life. I wonder. I met my husband at Harvard. When he got cancer, his classmates got him a drug that was not available in the United States. In the meanwhile, he joined a small start-up in Silicon Valley with some other classmates. This was in 1995. His success enabled me to quit work, so I could be at home, financially secure, with my children after he died. I think that Harvard was an important thing in my life, and in his."
Harvard was very important in my life and I also met my husband there, but the operative word is "my." It was important to me, but my children are not me. I think this is one of the hardest things to learn as a parent: my children are not me; they are not extensions of me; their achievements are THEIR achievements, not my achievements; and most important, what was good for me is not necessarily what is going to be good for them.
My primary job as a parent is to raise competent adults. That means adults who can fend for themselves in the world, who can handle disappointment, who can figure their own way out of difficulties. When they were small, I helped a lot since they were limited in their ability to help themselves, but as they have gotten older, I've tried to step back. In the case of my college age children, I've stepped way back. I would never think of calling their college or accompanying them to a job interview. I give advice when asked (and sometimes when not asked) and I connect them with friends of mine who might be able to offer career guidance or even special opportunities. But they need to learn how to navigate life, and even though I have more experience, I have a great deal of faith in them to find their way without my directing every step.
Harvard is a great place, but it is hardly the only place, and for some children it isn't the right place at all. And once you are there, you should spend plenty of time hanging out with friends, reading for pleasure and thinking. As the article laments, Harvard is now at risk of turning out robots, students who know how to study, but don't know how to live. That is the antithesis of what Harvard should be about.
Honestly, as one Harvard graduate to another: what is the big deal? Why must a child go Harvard unless that is HIS deepest desire and he determines to make the commitment required? Sure, lots of people who go to Harvard are successful, but there are many more successful people in the world than only Harvard grads.
It seems to me that snowplow parents are competing with other snowplow parents, and it's not about the children; it's about themselves.
I would remind myself that my goal was to get them to be functioning adults by oh - 18-22 years old. So would jumping in help or hurt that process? And trust me, many "moments" are easier if you just jump in and handle it yourself (this includes doing their homework/chores/fighting their battles/etc). But in the long run...they rob the kids of the chance to learn.
You denied that it was impossible to get into Harvard with a single B. Note that I said, at my child's school -- an upper-middle class white suburban high school. This is fact, not my opinion. I can't rule it out in the future, of course, but for the last five years (that is the length of time the data is displayed on Naviance) with a sample of more than 100 applicants, the lowest accepted GPA for Harvard Stanford and Columbia was unweighted 4.0 out of 4.0 at my daughter's school. Interestingly, I tried, using several techniques, including screen save, to copy this data to post here and failed. I understand Naviance wants to protect student privacy ( that is the reason this system is only used at the largest high schools, where individual identities can usually not be inferred from the data) but it does seem like excessive security.
Basically, I believe, we have gotten ourselves in the situation of professional sports. Everyone knows the athletes are using steroids; yet everyone cheers as records are broken. For any single athlete to stop using performance-enhancing drugs is career suicide. So, like a dysfunctional peacock's tail, the escalation goes on and on. Similarly, the resumes of the most competitive college applicants have swollen so grossly that, lacking exceptional sport skills, minority status, or other "hooks" the poor child has to have superpowers. Since these are not easy to come by, a chauffeuring, paper-editing, late night xeroxing, journal article downloading mother has to fill in. It has nothing to do with the desire or commitment of those students participating in the system. It has everything to do with an admissions office that demands that every year, the candidates be more, do more, and have more prizes. In fact, nearly every year, shortly after the application due date, the universities send out announcement citing all the statistics in which this years applicants exceed those of the last year (Now, 67% are 1st or 2nd in their class! Over 50% have 5 or more AP classes!)
Again, this has nothing at all to do with parents micromanaging and interfering in adult children's lives. And it has nothing to do with raising competent adults. Do you not think that the Harvard student, doing 3000 things is competent? He is, and my girls are too. The question is, what has all that competence and accomplishment cost them? I wish I could tell you, Amy, that my girls were able to stop on a dime, to look up, relax, explore and fool around a little, once that letter came in the mail. One did, for a while, but, truthfully, its been hard for them to put down the self-imposed whip.
And speaking of costs -- let me broaden the issue a bit, too. I believe that one of the direct causes of the admissions insanity at the very top tier schools is the incredible financial aid changes in the last 10 or so years. For those of you who don't know -- essentially what has happened is that, due to lots of donations and the stock market climb, the endowment of the very richest schools has become so huge that the vast majority of students pay little if any tuition. (Despite the recent decline, these policies have been maintained) It is a common misconception that better schools are more expensive. In fact, it is the reverse. Of course, the "list price" for the better schools is higher, but almost nobody pays the full price. At Harvard, if your parents earn 200,000 or less, Harvard is cheaper than any state school. While less competitive schools give much less generous aid and often require students to take out loans, loans been entirely eliminated at the very best universities. So the equation now reads, Harvard + no debt vs. tier 2 school + debt and tuition. It turns the pressure up just that much more.
kh3333, I like your idea.
"I wonder if you have taken a close look at Harvard admissions these last few years."
I have been an alumni interviewer for the past 15 years. I know how things have changed, but, in my judgment, what has changed most of all is the parents. Our cohort of Ivy League graduates are the parents of these would be Harvard students and we are responsible for creating this situation.
In the 1950's the sign of status was to belong to a country club. In the early 2000's the sign of status is to have a child at an Ivy League school. Many of us have grossly unrealistic expectations of our children.
I was the first person in my family to go to college. My family was proud of me simply for that. They had no expectations of me beyond that. There were no incredible standards that I was supposed to meet. I was simply supposed to get an education.
It is different for our children. They are supposed to exceed us, but because that's what WE want. We judge them by our standards and don't let them make standards of their own. The tutors, the coaches, the special programs are designed to gain an edge on everyone else, but that's only part of their purpose. They're also designed to train our children to believe that fulfilling OUR expectations is their obligation.
"You denied that it was impossible to get into Harvard with a single B. Note that I said, at my child's school -- an upper-middle class white suburban high school."
So what? You still haven't explained to me why it is so important that your daughters must go to Harvard or an equivalent school. Please don't tell me that it is the only path to success. I know many extremely successful doctors, lawyers, business people, writers, etc who did not go to Ivy League schools. I simply don't buy your contention that it is necessary for success. It is necessary for some parents' self esteem and that is entirely different matter.
"Since these are not easy to come by, a chauffeuring, paper-editing, late night xeroxing, journal article downloading mother has to fill in. "
I'm sorry to say that you are kidding yourself. One of my children has graduated from an Ivy League school and another is attending an equally highly ranked university. Neither had all A's and neither cured cancer in our basement or built a nuclear weapon in our backyard. And, by the way, we are white and upper middle class.
Both of them enjoyed college, worked hard, but had plenty of time to spend with friends and had only a few extracurricular activities. Could they have taken more courses, a double or triple major, participated in extracurricular activities at a nation level? They could have had they wanted to, but why should they do it if they didn't want to?
Life is about far, far more than the resume that you can assemble, and frankly, you can assemble a pretty impressive resume without destroying your private life in the process.
It's time for our generation of high achieving parents to come to grips with exactly who is doing what for whom. This is not about the children. This is about the parents, and the parents should stop pretending otherwise.
I used to work in the admissions department of an extremely competitive medical school. It was often painfully obvious when snowplow parents were involved, and such an observation was enough to place some candidates lower on the rank order list of admissions candidates. If you have almost 8,000 applicants applying for just 200 spots, and they are ALL high achievers, you look for anything to differentiate them.
To be honest, it was a slow evolution, but we eventually stopped even looking at most the essays. Unless there was something unusually bad, most were so clearly cut and paste (with a few key words thrown in to answer our specific essay questions) that it was a waste of time. Many were put together by professionals and not the applicant's own words anyway.
We focused on MCATS - something the student couldn't fake, and something we frankly wanted to have high average scores in to report to the AAMC. Once past MCATs and GPA, the interview was extremely important. This is where the serious douchebags could be weeded out - and they were, in huge numbers.
One thing that was maddening... there were simply never enough spots for the number of highly qualified applicants who would have made excellent doctors. Unfortunately, if some kid was the offspring of an alum, he was basically guaranteed and interview unless he had exceptionally low MCATS or GPAs. Certainly, that was a bit unfair - but it was the policy.
Anyway - back to the parents... I spoke with so many parents, it would make your head spin. These are young people applying to MEDICAL SCHOOL... and their mommy or daddy still fill out their financial aid applications for them?!?!?! Pathetic. We had irrate parents calling in wanting to speak with the DEAN or the PRESIDENT because their precious little son didn't get an interview. Wow. Did that ever work? No. In fact, it was often noted in the applicants file in case s/he re-applied the next year we'd remember the high-maintenance parent connected with this child.
Parents are NOT doing their kids any favors by doing their homework, filling out their college applications, or completing their financial aid applications. Such kids seem to struggle with every aspect of college life - including issues as simple as registering for classes every semester.
Admissions officers, as well as financial aid officers and others, can spot these kids from a mile away. Given the choice between a kid that looks excellent on paper and clearly independent versus a kid that looks too-good-to-be-true on paper and clearly has heavy parental involvement - guess which one gets recommended for the interview? We don't want to deal with high maintenance parents at colleges, and you risk having your kid discriminated against because of YOU if you continue to snowplow. Back off.
:) Ooooo... that felt good to get out of my system. I'm glad I don't work in admissions anymore.
Every single year we had at least a couple of applicants who clearly did not want to be doctors - but mommy or daddy wanted them to be doctors. This sometimes came out in interviews, or was just clearly evident in how hard the parents pressed us while the applicant himself/herself didn't even act vaguely interested in our school or the field of medicine.
Snowplowing is 90% about parent's vanity... (a made up statistic, obviously... but a good estimate.) Sad.
"Given the choice between a kid that looks excellent on paper and clearly independent versus a kid that looks too-good-to-be-true on paper and clearly has heavy parental involvement - guess which one gets recommended for the interview? We don't want to deal with high maintenance parents at colleges, and you risk having your kid discriminated against because of YOU if you continue to snowplow. "
That should make a lot of snowplow parents sit up and take notice!
Thanks for your perspective.
"Given the choice between a kid that looks excellent on paper and clearly independent versus a kid that looks too-good-to-be-true on paper and clearly has heavy parental involvement - guess which one gets recommended for the interview? We don't want to deal with high maintenance parents at colleges, and you risk having your kid discriminated against because of YOU if you continue to snowplow. "
That should make a lot of snowplow parents sit up and take notice!
Of course, if that were true, Harvard would not be filled with compulsive, work-addicted robots, whose mothers design their course schedules. But it is. That's the point of the original article we are discussing. If, as you claim, keen admission officers and interviewers had realistic expectations, I would not be driving now to restring a violin and pick up envelopes to stuff for "my daughter's" class fund-raiser.
Amy, you ask me:
You still haven't explained to me why it is so important that your daughters must go to Harvard or an equivalent school. Please don't tell me that it is the only path to success. I know many extremely successful doctors, lawyers, business people, writers, etc who did not go to Ivy League schools. I simply don't buy your contention that it is necessary for success. It is necessary for some parents' self esteem and that is entirely different matter.
Wow, that argument sounds familiar. I guess that's because it is the very same one used by the old elite to deny places at Harvard to Jews, African-Americans, women and the poor. They can go to other places ! They can succeed in other ways! They have different schools!
I reject that. I think that every child should have a chance to go to Harvard. And I think that it is fine, and right for Harvard to pick the best and brightest. Unfortunately, the method of assessing these children is so punishing , and so prone to manipulation that the best and the brightest are not being picked. Oh, the children accepted are extremely bright and talented, of course. They are also driven, spun, promoted and sold like candidates running for political office.
I appreciate your sympathy, Craze Czar, as well as your analogy. You are right, it is very similar to pursuing a career in professional sports at this point. We all watched a poor young man die at the Olympics because our desire for more, more, more has resulted in sports that are actually life-endangering.
Harvard is designing this track, not the mothers. And at this point it is is too hard, too fast, and basically life-endangering.
Notice that this is a cover piece with 9 ratings and about half a dozen different commenters. Most have long abandoned the fantasy of sharing their point of view here. I very much appreciate your take on this subject and suggest you write your own post. Not only will you get more support, but you will get more views, rates, and comments. People are interested in this conversation. They just don't want to have it here.
Good luck, harvardmom. :)
How dare you compared the situation of your privileged children to those who were kept out by quotas?
Moreover, you still haven't explained why your children must go to Harvard or else. Why is it so important to YOU? So important that you are willing to sacrifice THEIR childhood for YOUR self esteem?
Snowplow parents don't have their children's interests at heart no matter how much they insist they do. They have their own interests at heart and refuse to recognize the damage that they are doing.
Thank you
Somehow, I don't feel deprived. But maybe we'd better ask my kids. After they grow up. And have had enough therapy to learn of all the ways in which I've screwed them up.