<p>Johnny Inc’s payoff is in believing / hearing / seeing that he’s beaten your kid. Why give Johnny Inc the satisfaction of the payoff? Best way to REALLY tick Johnny Inc off is to give the impression you don’t care. It takes two to tango.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl is right. I have seen this play out . . . Johnny, Inc. wants to know what you got on the test, what courses you are signed up for next semester, what is your science project going to be, what is your summer job/ internship. If you not only don’t tell him, but also act as though you (or really) don’t care, it eats away at Johnny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would think it eats away at Inc. more than Johnny.</p>
<p>GA1012MOM: True enough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for the correction! Seriously, not being sarcastic. I usually try to fact check.</p>
<p>Schadenfreude:</p>
<p>It’s fun to refuse to do science fair projects for your children (naturally, supporting them through those with obtaining materials they request, but requiring them to do all the work, including all the investigating, write-up, and graphics beginning to end)…</p>
<p>…then to compare the child-created versions to the overwhelming number of parent-created projects lining the school hallways…</p>
<p>…then to compare both high school and college admissions results between the 2 groups, including performance (when known) in those institutions…</p>
<p>The results are often surprising. i.e., Not only did group in Paragraph One (including not just my own children but the progeny of other wise 
parents) do better on the measures named, they are still doing better today, versus those earlier classmates & competitors.</p>
<p>You see, parents who trust the capabilities of their children do not feel the impulse to “improve” upon that, let alone to be the dishonest shadow authors. They implicitly believe in not only the current & eventual achievement; I think they trust the “system” more. (System of college admissions; “system” of life’s balances – how effort & success often even out over time, etc.)</p>
<p>To me, when parents are overinvolved – whether that be through dishonest authorship of a Young Author’s submission (including illustrations) or science fair project, and/or through excessive supplemental tutoring to be point of near-mania, that tells me that either they don’t truly believe in their children, and/or they don’t believe that there is any fairness whatsoever to the vast array of college opportunities in this country (they’re cynical to a profound level, beyond just “Elite” admissions), and/or they don’t believe that authenticity eventually pays off in life, personally & economically. </p>
<p>These are pretty powerful and dark beliefs, to me – and I’m considered a pessimist by temperament, btw.</p>
<p>Pick your toxic belief. </p>
<p>Parents do have a voice in all of this “insanity,” “mania,” whatever you want to call it. On the local and small level, you can, as a group at your local school (haha, if any I’m speaking to have any young ‘uns still at home) insist to your school that all science fair projects and Young Authors’ projects be done strictly at school and kept in-progress at school, from beginning to end. Who helps out? Some people like parents to come in as teams and “help everyone.” I don’t, because I still see favoritism in that process. Millions of high school kids need community service hours. They would make perfect partner-helpers to these children to whom they are not related and have no biases for or against. Student gets someone close enough in age to understand that children don’t like to or need to be “taken over” by adults (and to understand that the younger ones feel intimidated by that, and tend to lose confidence & give up). </p>
<p>In any case, this philosophical aside is why I don’t get too worked up about those who waste their children’s childhoods over-prepping and over-grooming, because I know for a fact that very few such cases enjoy the (college admissions) results – purely as a result of the extra tutotring – which are the motivators for the parents.</p>
<p>I’m chuckling at the image of Momzie at the science fair. But I’ve got to say, if those kids gave you such lame answers, then they are NOT Johnny Incorporateds. They are merely Mom & Pop Johnnys. Johnny Inc.s are much too sophisticated to have been caught unprepared like that. Johnny Inc. would have been well-prepped prior to the fair. His parents or handlers would have told him “Now if someone asks you x, then say this.” Heck, we do that and we only occasionally work as a Mom & Pop company!</p>
<p>Guess we’re lucky to have good schools in this blue collar town. Gifted student opportunities. Some to Ivy schools from various public districts- not many with an interest from this part of the country. Son and relative from CA public schools who got perfect SAT scores, no tutoring- had to nag son to do practice tests. Son did do extra time for AP test prep in some classes- 6 5’s and 3 4’s on 9 total. Tutoring to us means helping others.</p>
<p>We should have a clear taxanomy for this 
</p>
<p>Johnny Inc.
Johnny & Company LLC
Johnny Mom & Pop
Johnny</p>
<p>It’s fun to refuse to do science fair projects for your children (naturally, supporting them through those with obtaining materials they request, but requiring them to do all the work, including all the investigating, write-up, and graphics beginning to end)…</p>
<p>…then to compare the child-created versions to the overwhelming number of parent-created projects lining the school hallways…</p>
<p>…then to compare both high school and college admissions results between the 2 groups, including performance (when known) in those institutions…"</p>
<p>How is that “fun”? Spending time chortling over how Johnny Inc’s grand plan didn’t work
as well as those snotty Incs thought it would isn’t much better than being Johnny Inc. I don’t teach my kids to measure their life success in relation to others; why would I model such behavior?</p>
<p>^^^ This makes me think about the “Mission Project” which has to be done in the 4th grade in Southern California. The kids have to make a model of a mission out of whatever materials they choose. I can still remember my oldest proudly bringing in his mission, slanting, and made of popsicle sticks, sugar cubes, toothpicks, and the like. He did the entire thing himself. He placed it next to that of his best friend… a perfectly awesome spectacle with perfect proportions and landscaping to scale… hahahaha…</p>
<p>The teacher was smart enough to see the difference. My son got an A. How he got it to school without it falling apart I will never know… :-)</p>
<p>there is the notion that gifted kids need as mush help as challenged kids. I believe it was a study from Petersons ed that showed gifted kids are at risk just as much as the learning disabled. that a significant percentage of homeless scored off the charts as kids.</p>
<p>The analogy they used was looking through a microscope, that gifted kids see the world so close-up that they can have difficulties.</p>
<p>So there may be some sound evidence for helping gifted kids with tutors. It may be the healthy thing to do for your child. also, I think it’s wrong that public schools use more resources on the slow kids than the advanced kids…just because you’re bright doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get equal resources to help accelerate your gifts!</p>
<p>and I feel sorry for the parent who brags that their little johnny is so bright that he is tutoring the other kids in class, ha, who is teaching Johnny then??</p>
<p>^^^ Reminds me of my sister going to her first parent-teacher conference when my niece was in first grade. Niece was an excellent reader and there wasn’t an appropriate reading group for her, according to the teacher. The teacher’s “brilliant” solution was to have niece lead a reading group! The teacher was shocked that my sister was not happy with the arrangement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jeez! They still do that? I did the “Mission Project” in the late 60’s in SoCal. I don’t remember what it looked like, just that it involved sugar cubes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I grew up before the days of “gifted education” (in my 'hood). I spent most of my childhood tutoring others, helping the teacher, and so on. </p>
<p>I used to resent the lack of education I received in my poor neighborhood. But now I realize all that teaching to others kept me quite stimulated. I also know now that you learn material at a deeper and more abstract level when you teach it to others. I still have that experience today (even with material I’ve taught many times over).</p>
<p>I ended up getting a PhD and teaching at an Ivy. I don’t think my lack of enriched education really made a difference. If anything, all that ‘teaching others’ maybe turned me into a professor :)</p>
<p>I look at some of the ‘cool’ enriched field trips my husband got to go on and what they did in their ‘pull out’ classes (he lived in a better area), and I’m not sure it was all that educational. It was fun and interesting, it had face validity as gifted education, but not sure it made a big difference to his abilities. He ended up a prof at the same school as I did, so there you go.</p>
<p>I’ve been thinking about this thread for the last two days. At first I was appauled–how sad what Johnny Inc is forced to do! But as a teacher, I know that Johnny won’t do anything he doesn’t want to do. So Johnny knows that all this “preparation” is important and goes with it. It goes with the family’s cultural values.</p>
<p>Where I live there are certain sports (namely those that involve snow) that outsiders cannot compete in. The kids here can outperform them on everything! Why? Because this is what they do! They can take “ski PE” in high school and go up to the mountain to train everyday! They can miss numerous days of school (up to 30-40) and teachers will work with them because the kids are busy competing (and the school district needs the ADA). </p>
<p>Maybe Johnny Snow will make it to the Olympics (yes, frustrated jocks are sure their kid is the one), but the price he pays is BIG–give up being academically competitive and go for the athletic scholarship. Academic? Yes, the majority of the super gifted athletes I’ve seen are exceptionally intelligent–they can read the snow, the course, their competition etc.</p>
<p>Johnny Snow faces the same pain as Johnny Inc. Was he really the best or did the other “normal” kids just give up? My point is, if “school” is what you do, you’d better be prepared if you want to compete against the best (I am not advocating that this is necessarily a
good thing). If you’re not willing to do what they are, you’d better be naturally better. Think about a coach–would he/she rather take the kid who has a lot of potential or the kid who has proven him/herself? It’s risky! </p>
<p>I would not have taken this position 2 days ago–this thread has really made me think. Johnny Inc and his parents are willing to do what the rest of us are not. I think what we’re all debating isn’t the “morality” of what is being done but rather if it is worth it (IMHO it isn’t!)</p>
<p>This is America, we strive to be a free society that believes in “live and let live.” My issue is not, for the most part, with the Johnny Incs. and their parents. They have scoped out the educational landscape and come up with a strategy they believe is best. It’s not as though their methods completely fail–they don’t. They work very well a lot of the time. So, as mtnmmomma points out, they have decided that this what they DO and they’re going to DO it as professionally as possible. </p>
<p>My gripe is mostly with how teachers, my school district, colleges, and college admissions officers are responding to this phenomenon. I don’t want to repeat myself regarding all the problems this is causing. But I think we have to decide whether we want to replicate here in this country the high-pressured educational scene, and high-stakes testing environment found in other countries.</p>
<p>But colleges tell us all repeatedly that they evaluate kids in the context of their school; not everyone needs to have 10 AP’s, blah blah blah. Do you not believe them? Do you not believe that there are just “normal bright” intriguing kids who get into top schools? Or do you think all the spoils are going to Johnny Inc?</p>
<p>This thread made me think too. Things/lines get blurrier as the thread gets longer. Among my mixed feelings is sadness for all us parents. If I were a kid, I’d say thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where is your proof that “colleges and college admissions officers” are “responding” (positively) specifically to the grooming/tutoring phenomenon as a stand-alone qualification for college: that the Incorporation of Johnny is the factor making the difference in that particular Johnny getting admitted? As I say to the CC students all the time: You would have to have examined all the competing files of all applicants to a given school in a given cycle, to be able to say with some believability that a particular factor (in this case, the Corporate Factor) was the admissions edge.</p>
<p>Here’s what I see in my area:
Johnny, Inc. gets an admissions edge indirectly, if his school is underpreparing him for competitive college admissions. If tutoring, whether once, or over a K-12 “lifetime,” succeeds in making him more of a boarding prep school grad than an average/mediocre suburban high school grad, then the issue (to me) is not that Johnny’s getting an “unfair” advantage, but that the other grads are getting an unfair disadvantage.</p>
<p>To me, and I can say this because it’s my field, the issue is the uncompetitive and uneven quality of U.S. public education as a whole, and more so in selected pockets.</p>
<p>It happened to be that I chose to attend a private high school during my Junior & Senior years. I did so for social reasons, not academic. My public high school was exactly on a par with the private school. Awesome, prepared teachers; every opportunity for advanced classes imaginable. I lacked for nothing intellectually. My college results would have been the same had I continued to attend that school vs. moving to the private. And our entire public school system should be that way. </p>
<p>Again, as I said earlier in the thread, you have to separate out many different impetuses for tutoring. I’m not going to repeat these here, but some of the reasons merely close gaps on public education inadequacies. Other reasons make up for deficiencies in the student, not the school being attended. Other reasons are projections of parental fantasies and assumptions about what “elite” schools supposedly do & don’t want; many times the students in this last category are additionally chasing stereotypes of what they assume Elites want to see in incoming freshman, and the great majority of time (judging by reported college admissions results here) that chase is pursued on the wrong paths and the results fall short.</p>