<p>This came from an organization I am professionally affiliated in reference to an upcoming TV segment: </p>
<p>"The producers described their story as a look at who the Echo Boomers are, and the characteristics of children born between 1979 and 1990. They describe Echo Boomers as the most looked-after generation ever, kids who "got a medal for showing up." Dr. Levine talked about Echo Boomers' lack of preparedness for the real world after high school and college."</p>
<p>We don't get US broadcast TV so I will miss the show. But the thesis is one I want to explore. The eldest kids of this group are now 25, the youngest 14. Is there a unifying theme? Why, if Dr. Levine is right, are they uniquely poorly prepared? Alfie Kohn where are you??</p>
<p>Did anyone see the original broadcast of this on 60 Minutes, and can you comment??</p>
<p>Oh my, I like this idea. I think it can be tied into the rampant grade inflation in both HS and College (of course, I can speak only for my children's schools).</p>
<p>My son rarely got below a 90, and considered an 80 AWFUL. I remember when I was a student, these grades were reserved for the very very very top students. Yet where my son is weakest, in mathematics, he would die if he dropped below a 90.</p>
<p>It's true, showing up and "putting in effort" are simply all it takes in many institutions....probably for fear of upsetting the child's self esteem. Not exactly a dose of reality, though I can understand the reasoning behind it.</p>
<p>Didn't see the broadcast. TheMom works for UC and attended a presentation with a different typography and associated traits. The medal-for-showing-up wasn't part of it but parental involvement or family-group-decision-making was...with problems highlighted of where it was inappropriate and where the university made some adjustments. (One parent had a real problem with the fact that she wasn't allowed to speak at her son's disciplinary hearing...as the admin pointed out, it was <em>his</em> hearing, not hers.) I remember that at the time I thought some of the items were interesting. I'll have to see if TheMom remembers them or has her notes.</p>
<p>Lide is sure easier for these kids than it eas for us. Funny, the rampant grade inflantion is one of the first things that came to mind for me. I wised up with my yonger kids and got them better schooling, but my oldest never learned what hard work was until late in the game because there were such low expectations at his suburban schools compared to what I faced in some run down inner city schools as a child. Many oif these kids, like my own, had babysitters and housekeepers because both parents work, which definitely resulted in some negative outcomes in children I've watched grow up. Children with closets full of designer clothes who will have to give that up because they don't value education enough to buckle down. The alcohol and drug issues seem bigger today, these kids are often unsupervised from a young age. So many reasons. Today I was looking at public school rankings. Couldn't find any CA schools except one in SF anywhere near the top. It seems like it's better in some States, some pockets.</p>
<p>I read a statistic somewhere about the percentage of students getting A's being incredibly higher than in the past. In your opinion, is this a result of an increased desire to attend college and work hard, or is it simply the problem of this "echo boomer" generation?</p>
<p>Not from CA, but I've heard of two great public high schools: Harvard-Westlake (prominently featured in The Gatekeepers and a feeder school for top colleges) and Henry Gunn in Palo Alto, a math powerhouse. I've also read very positive things about High Tech High in San Diego. It's a new school.</p>
<p>schools in Ca that have done well on AMC exams:
Henry Gunn (Palo Alto)
Harker School (San Jose)
Saratoga HS
Mt. Carmel (San Diego)
Arcadia
Palos Verdes
Miria Carillo (Santa Rosa)
Mira Loma (Sacramento)</p>
<p>Harvard Westlake is a private school as is Harker in San Jose where my nephew goes. I don't know the others, but the only CA public in the top 25 was a school in SF called University. We have great State Universities but a real problem with lower education that I'm feeling acutely as I try to make high school decision with youngest. Our private schools rank well, as we have many high scoring Asians whose parent's make it a financial priority to get them into good schools. The Asians, to generalize, have insisted upon different values and don't tend to have kids who would be classic "Echo Boomers."</p>
<p>Some other really good high schools in California (at least in the Eastern Bay Area):</p>
<p>-Athenian High School (Danville)
-Bentley High School(Oakland)
-Piedmont High School (Piedmont)
-Head-Royce High School (Oakland)
-College Preparatory School, or 'CPS' for short (Berkeley)</p>
<p>These are all very good, top-ranked high schools in California. They all have fantastic reputations.</p>
<p>I guess it's all relative. There were several LA schools I expected to see on the list but not a one. Other parts of the Country are doing a better job. I don't know much about school funding, but Prop 13 in the late 70's creadted serious funding problems in CA.</p>
<p>Ohhhh... I guess I didn't catch that part. Then I guess that the only public on my list is Piedmont High School, which is arguably the best public school in the Eastern Bay Area.</p>
<p>I have to say that this new generation from my perspective is expected to work harder than I ever did in an intense environment, supervised, watched over. I graduated from high school in '65 in a much more relaxed world. I was a girl so I wasn't expected to be quite so good in math and science; I didn't have to worry about competing for the "Ivy League" since it was only for "special" students mostly boys; my high school course work was wonderful--great teachers (Acalanes HS on the list); I was a B+ student and proud of that; and most importantly I had the freedom to explore my world from a tiny age without lots of parental supervision--I used to ride my horse with my friends into the wilderness most days when I was 8 and 9.</p>
<p>I had an interesting discussion with a fellow teacher the other day about his experiences growing up in Canada, in the wilderness, exploring, no adults. It makes you different. Most kids nowadays can't do that. Some may be closer to the adult world, have a better relationship with their parents, and maybe will take longer to leave the nest.</p>
<p>kirmum,
Where abouts in California are you? I can tell you about two top public high schools in my area but it would do no good if you are too far away. It's a biiiig state.</p>
<p>Momof2, I live in the Pasadena area. I am getting married in a few months and between us, we have 2 that are still pre high school. We are house and school shopping. Any thoughts appreciated.</p>
<p>Westlake High School in Westlake Village, just north of Agoura and south of Thousand Oaks is quite good. Expensive area but great traditional comprehensive high school. A few years ago they had three kids get into Harvard, which made the newspaper because more than one is unheard of around these parts. They send a few kids to ivies and top schools every year. Another good comprehensive high school is Oak Park H.S. in Agoura. </p>
<p>And if you PM me I will tell you about my S's public high school.</p>
<p>I didn't see the report, but I think its a mistake to assign this characterization to the entire generation born during the 1980's. The "Echo Boomers" description of the most "looked-after generation" ignores the other end of the spectrum. This is ALSO the generation where the Better Baby/Teach Your Baby to Read concept was born -- and competitive, high-achievement oriented parents competed to get their kids early admission into Harvard-track preschools. So while we DO have one cohort of children who were indulged through parenting, teaching, and coaching that emphasized "self-esteem" above all..... there is that OTHER cohort that we see posting on this board -- the kids who have been pushed and prepped, pushed to the max via highly competitive sports in early childhood (Olympic Development soccer, anyone?) or early academics and repeated testing, competition, and talent searches. These, of course, are the overextended, overprogrammed kids who are enrolling by droves into $1500 SAT review courses, taking and retaking the SAT for the coveted 1600 (soon to be 2400). Can these kids compete? And how! ... Their only problem may be that they don't know how to stop and smell the roses.</p>
<p>And despite these two stereotypes, I'll bet the vast majority of us raised our kids the best we know how, navigating between these extremes, sometimes over-indulging our kids, sometimes pushing, and most of the time ending up somewhere in between. So ... though I'm sure the program I missed probably has many astute observations .... I'd view the whole thing with a grain of salt. The competitive college admissions process our kids now face is a result of the bar being raised, not lowered .... and my own 80s-born kids seem to be doing just fine in the "real world". I doubt that they are uniquely endowed by my superior parenting skills .... rather I think that they are just like the vast majority of their generation: normal.</p>
<p>And I would like to remind those who bemoan the nature of the most "looked-after" generation that a hell of a lot of those coddled youngsters are fighting and dying in Iraq right now -- one place where they actually deserve a medal just for showing up.</p>
<p>Terrific answer, calmom! My older kids are also doing fine in the real world; and I agree that the bar has been raised, not lowered. As for the tv segment, I didn't see it, but why the sweeping generalization? Surely this generation is as diverse as any other. I can see it in my own town: there are spoiled kids; generous kids; hard-working kids; kids that expect the world on a silver platter; kids willing to sacrifice for others; etc. ad infinitum --- and many of the groups overlap! The same is true of adults in the other generations - the town has both self-centered "elders" who don't want to pay taxes for the next geneation, as well as those with the opposite view (just one example). I don't see much use or purpose in trying to pigeonhole a generation - it's a very lazy way of thinking - except that it makes a good "draw" for TV and gets a lot of people fulminating, so that they can be distracted from the real issues of the world....</p>
<p>Another point which I don't think has been mentioned yet is that, even though there may be grade inflation, our generation was not expected to take numerous AP courses in high school in order to succeed. My kids did much more schoool work in high school (especiallyl for the AP classes) than I ever did. and I was a very good student who was admitted to a very competitive college.</p>