<p>POIH - Thank you for being so superior that you continue to try and dumb it down for all of us “dense” people. I guess we will have to chalk it up to a cultural difference. If you really believe you can not let them fail, then fine. Good luck with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really?? You honestly believe you can simulate ALL situations? You are that omniscient? And you believe that young children can really process all that data and act like robots following it? Of course they won’t fall prey to normal human feelings and faults, that wouldn’t be logical.</p>
<p>The problem I guess is one of degree. You say you just want to provide information so they make good decisions and that you don’t make decisions for them. No one would argue with that, of course. The problem is that in most of your posts, you aren’t saying you do that. It sounds like in fact you make the decision for them, either directly, or my making sure you “provide” them with so much information that they only feel like they are making the decision themselves, while in reality you are forcing the issue. Maybe that is totally wrong, only you and your child know. I am just telling you that is how it comes across.</p>
<p>And BTW, there is no reson to copy an entire post and repeat it, just reference the post #.</p>
Because, contrary to your assumption, it is not possible. None of us have that perfect knowledge or that perfect amount of data to simulate all situations. If we did, there would be no need for the scientists and researchers among us. Or are you like the head of the Patent Office who said in the late 1890’s that there was no further need for his office, since “everything that can be invented has already been invented”?</p>
<p>How do you simulate learning to ride a bike so a kid can make an “informed decision” on whether the risk the skinned knee? How do you do that without scaring the kid half to death? How do you simulate every meeting with a stranger, and identify for the child which strangers are OK and which are not, without raising a kid afraid of his own shadow? Do you have the knowledge to identify which police officer or priest is a pedophile and which is not? And can you teach that identification to a child? No, we don’t want to risk kidnappings, but at some point you have to let your kid go somewhere alone or with other kids. Otherwise, you raise a crippled human being.</p>
<p>My d took a master dance class. They were being taught leaps and turns. Halfway through, the teacher stopped the class, and said, “How come I’m the only one who falls? If you don’t fall while learning these things, it means you’re not pushing yourself and not trying.”</p>
<p>Failing is part of learning. How many times did Edison fail in attempting to invent the lightbulb? Teaching children how to handle failure and how to learn from it is one of the essential parts of our jobs as parents, teachers and mentors.</p>
Exactly. And whether it is dance, skiing, learning to walk or what have you, if you don’t fall, you don’t learn. When I taught my kids to ski, the first thing we worked on was how to get up when they fell, not how to avoid falling. Now, if I’d only taught them how not to break bones, life would have been easier…But I digress. </p>
<p>And as for this
the third option, which I don’t advocate or recommend, is providing them with enough information, resources, etc so that they make the decision <em>you want</em> them to make.</p>
<p>I actually didn’t; you misread my post. I acknowledged your position, and then asked several questions based on it. One of those was whether restrictions on the tuition could be placed up front.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quite honestly, if I were a parent who did not approve of my child’s friends in a significant or substantial way, you better believe I would “pick” them. I would exercise that duty as a parent. It would be more to say that some friends are unacceptable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please read my post. I asked whether you feel the parent should be able to attach strings before handing the money over. </p>
<p>And for the record, “overly controlling” is not what this would be. Overly controlling would be picking a major while the child is paying.</p>
<p>“Quite honestly, if I were a parent who did not approve of my child’s friends in a significant or substantial way, you better believe I would “pick” them. I would exercise that duty as a parent. It would be more to say that some friends are unacceptable.”</p>
<p>How could you pick your kid’s friends? Certainly you could not allow the friends at your home and you could forbid your kid from going to their parties or obviously hanging out with them. However, you couldn’t keep your kid from hanging out with them at school or behind your back.</p>
<p>You also couldn’t force your kid to be friends with people whom you liked.</p>
<p>You hardly acknowledged my position; you said it had a huge flaw in the reasoning. The reason you think that is that you used as your premise that money controls. That the only way a child cannot accede to the parents choice of major is if the child pays. I never agreed with that. If you cannot see how controlling that is, and how horribly wrong, I hardly know what to say. This isn’t a simple business transaction, which is exactly how you seem to want to frame it. This is a parent either taking financial responsibility for this phase of their child’s life, or not. Again, if the parent chooses to take that responsibility, it does not confer the right to control intimate aspects of their child’s life, and I would contend that at 18 the decision of what to do with one’s mind is intimate in the extreme. Parents don’t cut apron strings all at once, it is a gradual process. And at 18 the child clearly has not had a chance to be financially independent, but they are old enough (usually) to make decisions about what they want to learn more about and possibly do with their lives. In most cases it isn’t even 18, it is 20 since they don’t really have to pick a major until they are juniors. After all, they can join the military if they want without your permission, so they should also get to make an intellectual career choice (Yes, I know you wouldn’t have to pay if they joined the military; that is not the point. The point is the societal norm of when they get to start having control over these kinds of life decisions). Therefore to answer your next-to-last statement, I will make it simple: No, you do not get to attach that string. Are there any strings? Of course. Don’t waste my money by flunking out, don’t spend the whole time there high, don’t get arrested for a felony, etc. But other strings are not permissible, such as choosing their career path or who they date or what clubs they join. These are fairly simple societal norms. Not that tough, really.</p>
<p>As far as the friends thing, well the guy is clueless. In the context of this debate, we clearly are not talking about if they pick criminals for friends, we are talking about a parent that feels they have to control highly personal aspects of a child’s life simply because they are financially responsible. And we aren’t talking about when they are 6 or even 10 either. We are talking about when they are old enough to make these kinds of decisions for themselves no matter who is paying. You really avoided my point anyway. If you feel you get to pick their friends pre-college, do you still get to when they are in college, if you are paying? Assuming you would say no, then I don’t see how you think you can regulate the career aspect of their life either. Honestly, if you cannot get the fact that you are equating who pays with who controls, then there is no more discussion to be had on the topic.</p>
<p>If I make the choice, the kid gets to blame me if it doesn’t work out. If HE makes the choice and it doesn’t work out, the results fall on him. He learns from it or doesn’t. I used logical consequences when my kids were small, and it still makes sense when they are young adults.</p>
<p>S1 made a decision recently that didn’t work out so well. He had discussed it with us, asked for our input, told us what he planned to do, and frankly, whichever decision he took would be ok with us. There were good and not-so-good reasons for each choice. He emailed yesterday to tell us how things worked out. </p>
<p>I can promise you the next time he is faced with that decision, he’ll be more involved in the process, ask a lot more questions and not just go along for the ride. (I can also tell you I’ll be on the sidelines holding my breath. But that’s my issue, not his.)</p>
<p>I have told my kids (even my 8 yr old) that I will insist upon certain General Ed courses be taken in college or as AP. IMO certain courses (basic accounting, bio, chem, macro ec, public speaking) can related to a multitude of jobs and/or grad schools. This is a “rule” I learned while doing a high school summer program. The VP of a well-known Pharm Co taught it to me. He was a psych major, but attributed his professional success to having basic business courses which led to getting that all important 1st job. One of my college roommates also “lived” by this advice because her accountant father forced her to have 2 accounting classes & 2 business courses. She was a Spanish Major her had an easy time entering into International Banking.</p>
<p>On the flip side, I watched college friends change their careers and have to go back to take “real” science courses because the first time around they opted to take the non-science major bio or chem to just get thru the general ed. </p>
<p>In summary, I agree that today’s students will change careers, but why not try and take courses that teaches skills for various fields.</p>
<p>Consider yourself very lucky that your child is even able to focus on a major at this stage of life. I know my 9th grader has no focus.</p>
<p>While some of these are certainly good skills to have, they are not available at many top colleges and universities, or at many high schools. (Accounting and public speaking, specifically.)</p>
<p>BfloGal – The student I mentioned who was doing this major at Manhattanville was a high school friend of my D’s. I’ll ask her over break if she has been in touch with her or facebooked her or something.
Has your son looked at Manhattanville?</p>
<p>^^^
whoops! I see you are on the west coast – perhaps that’s a little too far for you.
Has he looked at the four year plans and course selections for this major anywhere yet?</p>
<p>In the manner you suggested, and with the limitations you mentioned. Hence the quotation marks around “pick.” The point is that I as a parent would not feel comfortable stamping every declaration of irresponsibility my child decides to write up while I am also financially supporting him. Money is not control, but rather a privilege.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not horribly wrong at all. If your adult child asked you for money so he could subscribe to pornography or buy coke, would you hand it over? No. Why not? As soon as you acknowledge that some restrictions on money given are acceptable, then the line drawn becomes totally arbitrary. </p>
<p>I understand, and have stated this understanding previously, that you believe that a parent should only pay if he is willing to step out of the equation entirely (or almost so). My response was basically asking for your opinion on other situations, since I don’t find that particular train of thought very interesting or productive to discuss. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously. The question I’m asking pertains to the conditions under which that responsibility can be taken. They always have the right to refuse. What I want to understand is how you view parents who undertake that responsibility conditionally. In other words, is it unacceptable for a parent to say that the monthly allowance may not be spent on alcohol? Or drugs? Or party gifts? Your answer here would have to be no, from what I understand. Why? Because these situations are merely examples of “intimate control” of the child’s life. You are being extremely arbitrary in what constitutes reasonable conditions for financial support. I’m sorry, I’m not paying for my child to flunk out of college. By saying that, I acknowledge that there is some idea of “investment” in the college financial process – I’m not paying for a particular thing. Thence the restriction to this control over specific aspects is totally arbitrary. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would you assume that my response would be “no?” If my child spends her time with drugatics and bad influences, I see no reason why I should continue to support her life decisions, ones with which I disagree entirely.</p>
<p>Baelor…I thought you said you were not a parent. If you are NOT a parent, perhaps you will learn that parenting is different once you GET there than when you are not yet there.</p>
<p>I had a very controlling parent who attempted to UNchoose some of my friends (btw…who have become very successful adults) in high school. This parent and I never had a close relationship as a result, but these friends and I are still very close.</p>
<p>Wow, you really want to equate giving a child money to buy drugs or porn is the same as paying for their education? Talk about ridiculous. You think if you give them money to see a movie you get to pick the movie, even if they are all PG? Again, I am talking about, say, a 16 year old here. That is a far better analogy to the kind of control you are suggesting. Your example of comparing picking a major to buying drugs is ludicrous. And as I clearly said, of course you can refuse to pay just because you don’t want to. That is actually morally more acceptable than dangling money before them but putting unreasonable conditions on it. And yes, I think telling them what career they have to choose is unreasonable. Telling them they can’t use the money to buy drugs is not unreasonable. You have a severe comprehension problem since I clearly stated in my post it was OK to withhold money if they are flunking out, high all the time, or commit a felony, just for example. I was very clear also that successfully enriching their mind with what interests them is virtually the opposite of that. So when you say
you totally say I said the opposite of what I said. Actually your statement makes no sense, since you say "would it be unacceptable… to say…that (it) may not be spent on alcohol. Your answer would have to be no because that would be ‘initimate control’… " I think you meant to say I would say no to it being acceptable to say it cannot be spent on these things, since that is the only way what you said makes sense. In any case, I clearly stated I would say yes, it is acceptable to say it cannot be spent on those things and I clearly cited drugs and flunking out as reasons it would be acceptable to say no to paying. If you think that is arbitrary, then you show no capacity for judgement. Is the world really that black and white to you? Newsflash: they call it common sense. When it comes to providing money for things like drugs, etc. they even have a specific name for it: enabling. I don’t think letting a child choose their area of study at a university could possibly be thought of as enabling. Hopeless.</p>
<p>That is truly one of the most disturbing statements I have ever read. He is saying you either control everything or you control nothing if you are supplying the money. That you either say yes to everything or yes to nothing you don’t approve of ahead of time. Otherwise it is arbitrary.</p>
<p>Surely you cannot believe that. Do you stop to think for even a minute before you say things?</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? Of course I would tell him that some movies are unacceptable and that my money will not be going toward them. I didn’t think that any parent would feel otherwise; mine certainly don’t. I’m thinking more about restrictions than specific picking here. Wow. I didn’t think any parents would actually let their kid see whatever movie he wants on their buck.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this distinction is certainly one that you hold. It’s also completely arbitrary. You just posit that it’s justified because of some sense of “morality.” Not everyone holds a moral view on drugs, alcohol, or anything for that matter. And for societal norms to be an acceptable argument here, you would need to first prove that they should be a determinant. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, your idea of what is acceptable or not is totally arbitrary. Would you withhold money based on grades? What about how they spend their time on the weekends? What about whether they use alcohol as a minor, but not to a degree that it affects their studies?</p>
<p>How can you possibly universally assert that a particular approach to college funding is the right one, given that different parents have different viewpoints on the severity of them? I don’t understand why you think everyone should follow your own approaches to parenting.</p>
<p>If the ultimate goal is to help the child succeed in college and enrich their thinking skills or whatever, then there is a lot of leniency in acceptable and unacceptable issues in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t appreciate the irrational condescension, especially if it is based on a blatant lack of reading comprehension.</p>
<p>I’m arguing that for you to assert your viewpoints on acceptable reasons to withhold money is irrational because the criteria are arbitrary when one considers that they differ from parent to parent. I am NOT arguing that a parent should have total control; that is a total strawman and a perversion of my argument. I’m simply stating that your reasons are completely arbitrary in nature, as are mine, so you really have no basis for saying that no parent should ever withhold money for such and such reason.</p>
<p>For some, any alcohol usage is unacceptable. For others, not. Would you really tell a parent that their views on this issue are unacceptable?</p>
<p>I suggest you start responding to my posts, not some wildly corrupted version of them.</p>
<p>I know that when I was a childless, young woman in my early twenties I had, what I thought, was THE formula on how to raise successful, well adjusted, happy children. Then the baby arrived. </p>