Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Former Stanford dean explains why helicopter parenting is ruining a generation

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 197 posts

Re: Former Stanford dean explains why helicopter parenting is ruining a generation

#31

Post by idiot900 »

tetraodonpuffer wrote: post #11
hubridnoxx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's not quite so binary. The dean wants a strong applicant pool as well as to dissuade helicopter parenting. I don't believe it's a contradictory stance she's taking.

if "strong" applicant is defined by things that are not possible unless they have an helicopter parent it is fairly binary... What teen would be able to have the breadth and variety of experiences that seem to be required nowadays to stand out in a university application unless they have a set of parents that make them possible?

A very small number of teens do, which is fine with them.

Re: Former Stanford dean explains why helicopter parenting is ruining a generation

#32

Post by bduerst »

supercanuck wrote: post #14

You know what. Those parents got those kids into Stanford. Obviously helicopter parenting is working for them. 90% of the decisions people make are based on the environments they are in. Today's environment is extremely competitive and the margin for error is lower. Nobody wants to be the parent of the most mentally stable Starbucks Barista... Get them into Stanford, then they have the rest of their life to "fail"

Survivor bias. The students accepted to Stanford could be a representative sample of the larger upcoming student population in other universities, with regards to helicopter parenting.

Re: Former Stanford dean explains why helicopter parenting is ruining a generation

#33

Post by veryes »

supercanuck wrote: post #14

You know what. Those parents got those kids into Stanford. Obviously helicopter parenting is working for them. 90% of the decisions people make are based on the environments they are in. Today's environment is extremely competitive and the margin for error is lower. Nobody wants to be the parent of the most mentally stable Starbucks Barista... Get them into Stanford, then they have the rest of their life to "fail"

Exactly so.

Only a name-brand school will actually deliver career benefits commensurate with the cost of attending. If you can't get in to a Harvard or Stanford, one might do better to learn a technical trade independently than go into debt to attend a UCSD, Washington State, or god forbid a second-tier private college.

Second tier schools are not worth the money they're asking in the present environment.

Re: Former Stanford dean explains why helicopter parenting is ruining a generation

#34

Post by falcolas »

analog31 wrote: post #23
ThomPete wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting your kids into Stanford has nothing to do with helicopter parenting and I think you are missing the bigger point. The failing that you do when you are 6 is very different from the one you do when you are 16 or 26, they all accumulate and you can't redo your childhood. The things you learn when you are 6 and 16 are closer to the competition you are in when you are out of Stanford. Getting in to stanford is not…

So, what happens to those kids after Stanford, e.g., the ones who get CS degrees but were helicopter-parented? How do they compare to the kids who were equally interested in computers but "allowed to fail," e.g., did not have sparkling resumes and were rejected by Stanford?

In ten years, one is homeless, the other gainfully employed in the tech field?

Honestly, we don't know. And while your choice of university matters for the first few jobs out of university, it quickly gets pushed to the back of the bus in favor of experience. Mental stability and the framework to deal with real life, though, matters much longer.

Re: Former Stanford dean explains why helicopter parenting is ruining a generation

#35

Post by avz »

munin wrote: post #21
supercanuck wrote: post #14

You know what. Those parents got those kids into Stanford. Obviously helicopter parenting is working for them. 90% of the decisions people make are based on the environments they are in. Today's environment is extremely competitive and the margin for error is lower. Nobody wants to be the parent of the most mentally stable Starbucks Barista... Get them into Stanford, then they have the rest of their life to "fail"

> Nobody wants to be the parent of the most mentally stable Starbucks Barista here's an important question to ask yourself: if you had to choose, would you rather your children be kind, or smart?

Both would be best, but if I had to chose I'd go for smart.

I've seen smart, but unkind people learn to be kind over time. I doubt a kind halfwit can learn to be smart. That's presumably the case because smartness defines your general ability to learn, change and adapt.

Re: Former Stanford dean explains why helicopter parenting is ruining a generation

#36

Post by scarmig »

meow_mix wrote: post #28
supercanuck wrote: post #14

You know what. Those parents got those kids into Stanford. Obviously helicopter parenting is working for them. 90% of the decisions people make are based on the environments they are in. Today's environment is extremely competitive and the margin for error is lower. Nobody wants to be the parent of the most mentally stable Starbucks Barista... Get them into Stanford, then they have the rest of their life to "fail"

So now getting into a top college is more important than being a functional person? Failing when your an adult is more than getting a bruised knee: It's getting stuck in a job you hate, ending up in a bad marriage and becoming sick/obese because you don't know how to take care of yourself. All of those things happen because people don't know what works for them . The reason they don't know that is because other peopl…

It's not evident that so called "helicopter parenting" and getting into a top college causes any of the above. First and last are anti-correlated with it, and I wouldn't be surprised if the second is too.

Obviously some people overdo it, but superior life outcomes and being a functional adult seem to go with heavily involved parenting.

Re: Former Stanford dean explains why helicopter parenting is ruining a generation

#37

Post by jon_dahl »

supercanuck wrote: post #14

You know what. Those parents got those kids into Stanford. Obviously helicopter parenting is working for them. 90% of the decisions people make are based on the environments they are in. Today's environment is extremely competitive and the margin for error is lower. Nobody wants to be the parent of the most mentally stable Starbucks Barista... Get them into Stanford, then they have the rest of their life to "fail"

What a false dichotomy: Stanford or life as a service worker. Both Google and YC have stopped focusing on college prestige in their hiring/acceptance, because it wasn't a particularly strong indicator of success.

I would much rather send healthy kids to a state school or liberal arts college than unhealthy kids to Stanford.

Re: Former Stanford dean explains why helicopter parenting is ruining a generation

#38

Post by supercanuck »

munin wrote: post #21
supercanuck wrote: post #14

You know what. Those parents got those kids into Stanford. Obviously helicopter parenting is working for them. 90% of the decisions people make are based on the environments they are in. Today's environment is extremely competitive and the margin for error is lower. Nobody wants to be the parent of the most mentally stable Starbucks Barista... Get them into Stanford, then they have the rest of their life to "fail"

> Nobody wants to be the parent of the most mentally stable Starbucks Barista here's an important question to ask yourself: if you had to choose, would you rather your children be kind, or smart?

Which one is more employable? If Hacker News is any indication, I would say Smart.

Re: Former Stanford dean explains why helicopter parenting is ruining a generation

#39

Post by ckaygusu »

ryanmonroe wrote: post #24
munin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody wants to be the parent of the most mentally stable Starbucks Barista here's an important question to ask yourself: if you had to choose, would you rather your children be kind, or smart?

A kind idiot probably isn't of much use to society

Sticking to the context, a smart person with ill intentions may damage the society. For a reference "smartness", assuming being kind or misogynistic is equally likely, the expected worth of a person is still zero, i.e. "isn't of much use to society".

Re: Former Stanford dean explains why helicopter parenting is ruining a generation

#40

Post by 6d0debc071 »

hubridnoxx wrote: post #6
6d0debc071 wrote: post #3

It seems a bit rich for the Dean of an educational institution that demanded, during her tenure and after, the sort of qualifications and CVs that encourage this behaviour to protest it. If you don't want it around, stop providing the incentive for it.

Of course it's not quite so binary. The dean wants a strong applicant pool as well as to dissuade helicopter parenting. I don't believe it's a contradictory stance she's taking.

The Dean can of course want whatever she likes, without contradiction or with hardly matters since our wants are not rational. But the chance of getting it seems unlikely to lie with preaching to parents that they should let their children fail. Especially not in a nation with a very high culture of ambition where so many perceive failure as catastrophic.

If you are a gatekeeper to an area of high value, and if you set demanding test standards, then people are going to try to teach the tests. All the talking about good parenting in the world seems unlikely to change that.

In that position, one can either change the standard to support that which one desires, (Have a discussion that goes something like, “If we are interested in educating young men and women of resilience, how do we encourage and/or test for resilience?”) or one can complain. I've yet to seen any indication that complaining will improve matters in a situation where the majority of the incentive seems to lie on the side of those who act contrary to your desires.

Post reply on HN