<p>Chedva, I am going to give up after this, and not post again here. I am getting tired of myself, but one more effort to clarify. </p>
<p>I am using the term “contrived” in a sort of philosophical way, to describe a perception of reality, not as a judgement. It simply describes a situation in which the need to work is not absolutely authentic ( which would be based on absolute financial need), but instead, the work is intended as a way to absorb values such as personal responsiblity, work ethic, independence. In addition, the work is being done not because the student himself sees the absolute need, but because the parents are requiring it for attainment of their own, explicitly stated, values. So it becomes an issue between parent and child, not a strictly economic issue that is emotionally neutral.</p>
<p>Of course anyone would approve of kids working, and kids working toward independence, and I never said that I did not think kids should work. I have stated several times that my son paid for 80% of his college by working every spare minute he had. </p>
<p>However, the difference is, we never told him to do this. He knew it was needed. We would have liked for him to work less, not more. We offer as much of a safety net as we possibly can, and did pay for his books, as a gesture that had little actual worth versus the expenses he was handling on his own, but that conveyed an emotional message that we cared about his education and wanted to support his hard work in some way.</p>
<p>There is no judgement here. I just think that parents with more resources are dealing with money being a “wall between family members” (someone’s eloquent phrase) in a way that, ironically, families with fewer resources do not. </p>
<p>That is because, for less affluent families, the need to work is obvious, and the kids just go ahead and do it for the direct reason that money is needed. Parents do not have to tell them to do this, and the jobs are just, er, jobs, and not expressions of parental values being imposed from above. So money is not a power struggle, and, actually, the parents aren’t even involved. Money issues become more cooperative, with people pitching in and/ or taking care of themselves.</p>
<p>Rockefeller’s sons were working in a job that he provided, under terms that he determined. That is not an autonomous situation, and I think that kids with any spunk would rebel. The situation described is almost trite these days. The CEO’s son or daughter in the mail room sharing experiences with their future employees. However, it is also a stereotypical situation that children of the wealthy (and we are talking extremes here, not anything to do with the posts here, but you brought up the Rockefellers) are absolute messes, and lack initiative or ambition of their own. Another stereotype is the low-income immigrant who cleans toilets so that their high achieving son or daughter goes to law or medical school. Those parents are supporting their kid in every way they possibly can, and do not need to require mowing lawns or delivering papers to get the message across. Many would prefer to work more themselves to their kid can study, and not work, if possible.</p>
<p>It was probably not an idea even worth posting in the first place, and I seem to be having a hard time making myself clear. It is interesting to read these threads, but I agree with the person who said we all have different philosophies and we can all be right in what we are doing, even though our approaches are so different. Kids are different individuals, and we all come from different backgrounds and have different values. I read once that consistency is the most important thing, and many people here, including the original poster, are demonstrating that. And her situation with her son is improving, so there is really no more need to write on the thread!</p>