<p>It may just be talk. He may like the idea but find, as he investigates it further, it is not for him. OR he may surprise himself, you, and the whole world by being perfectly suited and exceedingly happy doing it
We have told #theoryson that college is a time for him to try on some different hats and see which ones fit best. He has ALWAYS said he would major in math. Well, now that he is there, he is thinking he may want to try some other things (that, like you, <em>I</em> don’t see him in) but I have encouraged him to try them anyway.
I think part of spreading ones wings is thinking for ones self and making ones own decisions, much as it pains us who feel we know better.</p>
<p>“So…what do you do? Demand a refund because your “investment went south”. Demand that the kid enter the field that you thought they were going to enter?”</p>
<p>NOW your just being silly! ( meant in jest…a line from the Seinfeld no more kiss hello episode…)</p>
<p>But seriously; why must the examples be so extreme? I THINK I’m just talking about making the best of the relationship each of us has devloped with our children. I think being 22, even 19 or 20, is pretty different from being a junior in high school. At least in my house. I must say I am very impressed with the maturity and foresight of most of the kids who post, and the kids of parents who post. For the most part, it feels like a different experience. Kids who have long term plans in middle school, kids with strong and persistant passions. I don’t know many kids like that. I wonder if that would be different? My son has always had a little more talent than effort, and has frequently had his “aha!” moment just a little late.</p>
<p>BTW, I discussed this thread with my 16 y.o. son, and he was really amused by the idea that a parent paying for tuition would be criticised for having an opinion about how it is spent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s just quite fortunate that your D happened to be smart enough to get into an elite school, and in an area that you value highly (science). Lucky for her she wasn’t an artsy type, or a music type, or the kind of person who wanted to study classics or Latin or go to divinity school or something else you would find “useless.”</p>
<p>BTW, you had some nerve saying that “money wasn’t important” on another thread, because we all know darn well that part of why you’re happy about the MIT choice is that it increases your D’s chances of being a highly paid professional.</p>
<p>fallenchemist, we don’t seem to be understanding each other. Either I am not very clear, or what I am trying to say eludes you completely. Whether it is the first or second is relevant and not worth discussing. In this post, I will reorganize my questions and position so they are more coherently presented.</p>
<p>I also ask that you extend to me the same civility that I feel I have extended to you, something which you unabashedly have not done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re not strawman arguments because I’m neither misrepresenting your position, nor picking out a particular point in your argument, deconstructing it, and then claiming your whole position to be false. The argument regarding drugs is not that they are the same (something I explicitly stated several times), but they are both examples of a lifestyle choice on the part of the student. Whether or not you agree with this is irrelevant – but I’m not intentionally or even unintentionally misstating your position. I’m very clearly arguing for a continuum here, one on which drugs and major lie. I’m also not even claiming they lie near to each other, i.e. that Topic B (drugs) is equivalent to Topic A (major). However, I am arguing about the choices that parents must face surrounding these topics, however dissimilar they are. They do, however, have on thing in common – a choice made by the student in college. Therein lies the connection and relevance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have never taken a philosophy course in my life. I suggest you refrain from irrelevant assumptions that only cast doubt on your credibility and ability to discuss something relevantly and rationally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will address this later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I live in real life, where money controls. I don’t like that fact, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate. The questions is whether money should control when it can choose not to, or whether there is an obligation to relinquish control at all. This is simply a rephrasing of the OP’s questions.</p>
<p>Now, for the actual argument:</p>
<p>1) We make decisions based on choices and personal preferences</p>
<p>2) These choices differ from person to person</p>
<p>3) Societal norms do not make a particular position correct, they merely reflect the majority belief at the time (e.g. slavery, women’s rights, etc.). In other words, an appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy (which is a fact, not an opinion)</p>
<p>4) The combination of statements 1-3 lead to the categorization of these choices as “arbitrary” when considered as a whole. In fact, don’t call it “arbitrary.” Call it “shinbloop.” The terminology is irrelevant when the definition being used is clearly determined. For the sake of this argument, “arbitrary” is equivalent to “shinbloop” is equivalent to a wide set of perspectives that individually are perfectly reasoned, but lack a coherent overlying theme or unifying factor. In other words, although each person has a specific reason for believing something, but at a macro level everyone has different positions and different reasoning. When one considers millions of people, an individual’s choice to believe in authoritarian control over a child is “arbitrary” or “shinbloop” even though at a micro level, it is clearly not</p>
<p>5) Building from 4, unless one accepts that there is an absolutely correct position that can be empirically justified for a given issue, then some degree of value judgment comes into the equation that has as its output the viewpoint of the individual</p>
<p>6*) This value judgment is by definition not scientific and thus cannot be disproved or proved, although one may believe it to be incorrect</p>
<p>Now, for money:</p>
<p>1) A person’s money is his own. This person is not obligated legally to support anyone else directly through this money. Whether he morally should is irrelevant at this point because it may depend on the specific issue</p>
<p>2) A person has control that he is willing to enforce or relinquish on a voluntary basis</p>
<p>Okay. The premises have been laid out. Now for potential outcomes (positions and consequences).</p>
<p>Position 1) A parent’s control over choice of major is an empirical issue. It therefore has no value judgment and thus no grounds for contention. As a result, one position (i.e. they should or they should not have control) is correct. In this case, it would be acceptable in a logic/principle context to tell another parent that he is wrong for (not/) controlling his child’s major.</p>
<p>Position 2) A parent’s control over choice of major is not a positive issue, but rather a normative one. However, the parent feels justified in saying that his normative view should apply to everyone (in the sense of a transcendentalist) because he believes it to be correct.</p>
<p>Position 3) A parent’s control over choice of major is not a positive issue, but rather a normative one. The parent does not feel justified in telling others that their normative views are incorrect, i.e. the parent would not say “The parents should regardless of their child’s major pay for the child’s major. They should not restrict this choice of the child.”</p>
<p>So, I guess, what position are you in? That was actually my original question – do you think that it’s never acceptable to dictate choice of major, or is either decision of the parents correct, assuming it does not have sinister motivations driving it? In other words, I am trying to understand whether the parents on this thread view this as a personal decision or in a more absolutist light.</p>
<p>You could also argue that 6) is incorrect, because I am positing that only empirical knowledge is possible to be justifiably universally enforced (i.e., the belief that the sky is green or 2+2=3 is not worth considering and acknowledging). </p>
<p>I would also draw a distinction between “moral” (the term applied very loosely) issues and personal preferences. For example, torture is clearly a moral issue. Favorite color is a personal preference. No one I know would claim that everyone should have the same favorite color, favorite body part, etc. Where does this choice of major fit on the spectrum? This is also a relevant question.</p>
<p>There was something about POIH not allowing his D to apply to Yale and Columbia, too.</p>
<p>Of course, I’m a fine one to talk since I let my kid apply to only one college, right? :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought he said DD didn’t apply to Yale or Columbia…her decision…but if she had wanted to, he would have discouraged her from doing so because of safety. Personally, I didn’t “get” that rationale…I guess he thinks New Haven and NYC are not as safe as Boston. Whatever.</p>
<p>sort of late joining the party …</p>
<p>One of my kids has made a few choices in life that appear to be pretty odd … and then over time when all the information comes out have made me as proud as a ever have been as a parent. One example … </p>
<p>When one of my kids started HS s/he made a lot new friends covering the gamit of kids at the HS … overtime the group shrink (no surprise) but was worrysome was the closer group tended to be less motivated and not as nice kids … while s/he moved away from the more popular more polished kids. Over time the story came out and there were two driving forces to the changes in my child’s friend choices … one s/he moved away from those who were drinking and doing drugs (including top 10 of class, captain of team, squeeking clean look, kids) and towards kids who were not doing drugs and drinking and who in my child’s words treated people nicely and were not judgemental (and did not max out their academics, wore cloths I wouldn’t pick, and did not stand out in any way). There is no way as a parent I would possibly know these kids well enough to know these facts … but my kid picked friends for terrific reasons … and if I had “picked” I would have picked the wrong kids.</p>
<p>And this is just one example of this same child making decisions that initially looked odd to us but ultimately were terrific decisions for the child.</p>
<p>I find it stunning that for some posters, the litmus test of good parenting or a good outcome for their child is whether they do well in school and the academic system (e.g. where they end up at college or how prestigious their occupation or final salary turn out to be).</p>
<p>While certainly we may care about those things, being able to ‘do well in school’ or “get the right college” is hardly the end all, be all. What about being happy or calm vs. miserable or stressed? Being creative? Having confidence to speak up, speak out, do things differently than everyone else when necessary? Take risks? Make independent decisions? Follow a unique path that leads to innovation? I could go on but you get my point. </p>
<p>I see have seen amazing students over the years. Great academic and ‘achievement on paper’ sometimes is packaged with a lot of other great attributes, and other times it seems packaged with a lot of sad attributes. I think none of us <em>just</em> want academically achieving students who look good on paper…we also want our offspring to be happy, self-confident, grounded, balanced, creative, inspired, with a concern for things bigger than themselves, and who want to make a difference in the world. Don’t we? </p>
<p>I get a sense that some types of parents have managed to get their kids to obtain the right grades and test scores, please the teachers and admissions committees, but in reality, those kids are missing something (don’t misunderstand me: there are PLENTY of kids who hit a home run on everything…I’m just talking about a subset of the look good on paper kids). Anyway such students can repeat verbatim what they’ve memorized, but are afraid or unable to apply what they’ve learned to unique situations. They can get the top score on the midterm but seldom speak in class, let alone challenge the professor’s comments. They want to be doctors but genuinely aren’t that interested in helping other people. They supposedly care about learning, but only take courses that will secure the best GPA. It seems they are all about form over content, about instrumentality over authenticity, following rules and pleasing others rather than listening to their inner voice. </p>
<p>I dunno. Maybe it all works out in different ways for different kids, but I think sometimes some parents too focused on controlling some aspects of their children’s lives may possibly and inadvertently undermine other aspects of their development. Aspects that I strongly believe will be <em>extremely</em> important in the decades to come.</p>
<p>more directly to the OP … if my kid decides s/he wants to major become involved in XYZ and I think it is a terrible fit/decision for him/her … I would help them become exposed and involved in this interest area as soon as possible … and their current interest will either be reinforced or they will move on to the next interest. Presonally, if there is any time in a person’s like to chase a pipe dream it is when they are 18-19-20 (and maybe again once the kids are launched).</p>
<p>I recently read a book on mid-life career changes that claims the traditional approach … step back, analyze the various options, and the pick your new path … is far from the bet path to changing careers. What seems to work better is experiencial learning … so tying this to the OPs post … so instead of sitting at my laptop and researching and analysing getting involved in the music industry the better approach is to get involved in the music industry … maybe volunteer, or work part-time, or work in local community groups, etc; anything to live in the industry and to try it on for size. Looking back at my life that certainly fits my experiences … my regrets are things I never tried … and many things I tried and thought I would like turned out to not be for me. For me there is an obvious parallel for my kids … interested in the music industry let’s get you involved in it instead of daydreaming about what it will be like.</p>
<p>Baelor said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, you have stated a premise on which to base the rest of your argument, correct? I would say it is a false premise. In real life families in the USA, money usually is not the controlling factor, as the much larger proportion of people that have responded here saying they do NOT think they should pick their child’s major demonstrates. I would further say, and I know you do not agree with this, that a parent/child relationship that is controlled by money is dysfunctional. It is more of a business relationship than a familial one. To go back to something I said long ago, if money is controlling and if the parent becomes dependent on the child financially (usually if this occurs it is in old age), does the child get to make all these similar types of choices for the parent? Do they get to pick what movies the parent goes to? What organizations they get to join for companionship their own age? Sounds perverse to me, downright disrespectful even, but by your reasoning, perfectly acceptable.</p>
<p>
You don’t make it clear what “both” includes (one is obviously drugs) but I will assume the other is choice of major. I still maintain that the whole drugs conversation was in fact a strawman argument the way you presented it, totally distracting from the issue. Because picking one’s career and area of expertise on which to base the rest of their life is far more than a “lifestyle choice”. My position is that there is a line over which no other person should cross in terms of dictating to that person, especially once they have graduated high school and usually 18. They cannot cross this line, no matter the circumstances (excluding diminished capacity issues), including the circumstance of choosing to pay for a child’s college education. It is overly intrusive and controlling. OK?</p>
<p>thumper, it didn’t sound like it was her decision not to apply in [this</a> post](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063377448-post436.html"]this”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063377448-post436.html):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah…well…I have to disagree that they are in “crime infested areas”. They are URBAN college campuses…so is MIT. So are a lot of other terrific schools. I suppose they wrote off Columbia also.</p>
<p>I’m SURE they wrote off Cornell because it’s supposedly the “easiest Ivy” in which to gain admission.</p>
<p>You know…my kids wrote off their own choices of colleges…and sometimes for VERY random reasons. Their choice…THEY were going to college, not ME!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Money only controls if you want it to control or choose it to control.
If I take my kids out to dinner, it doesn’t <em>enter my mind</em> that I should “control” whether they order the spaghetti or the chicken, the iced tea or the Coke. Just because it’s my money doesn’t mean I need to be a control freak.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can read the rest of my post where I note what assumptions I make. The fact that money controls is not really one of them, unless you interpret it as I did. The point is that the choice to not make ultimatums as a financial backer is in a way also an example of a way in which money controls, as we perceive this choice to be exactly that – a choice. In other words, money could control if it wanted to, which is simply presenting more options to the financial backer. But this isn’t really relevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay FOR YOU. But given that you have no objective criteria backing this position, I fail to see how you can present it as fundamentally and irrefutably true. Why did you draw the line where you did? Was it based on values or on facts?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you still have that choice, which is completely the point – the control is still there in whether you choose to exercise further control or not.</p>
<p>Again, I systematically laid out my points, so I shouldn’t have delved into this part.</p>
<p>owlice/thumper1:
</p>
<p>We didn’t force DD to not apply to Yale/U. Penn, instead informed her that we won’t be able to send her to these two institutes because of safety concerns. In order to give her a first hand experience, we took her to all the colleges that were on the top of her list to let her make the decision about where to apply or not. After visiting New haven and Philadelphia she her self made the decision to not apply to these two college.
She liked NYC and would love to work in NYC. She didn’t apply to Columbia because she wanted to do a good job on this if she doesn’t get into MIT/Caltech EA.
Since she got in there early that is why she didn’t apply to Columbia. She would have gone to Columbia over UCB.</p>
<p>I feel bad for the OP whose post was kind of hijacked here. Hope she got the advice she was seeking</p>
<p>
How is this any different? Would she have planned to take out loans and paid for Yale or Penn herself if you didn’t want to send her there?</p>
<p>POIH, you told your D you wouldn’t send her to Yale or UPenn. Of course she “made the decision” not to apply – you had already effectively made the decision that she would not be attending either school for her! You didn’t place the decision in her hands; you kept it firmly in yours.</p>
<p>Baelor - The whole basis for this discussion was the question “If I am paying, is it alright for me to choose for my kid?” So of course the choice of using money to control is relevant, it is the entire discussion. Frankly, and I don’t mean this in a confrontational way so don’t be insulted, your statements are so absolutist, internally contradictiory and silly that they really cannot be responded to any longer. Choosing not to let money control is just an example of money controlling? You are right, I am not smart enough to understand that. Maybe in the rarified air of academia that makes sense.</p>
<p>As far as that line I talked about being based on values or facts, what kinds of facts could one possibly use in a discussion like this? Of course it is based on values, this whole discussion is about values. Human rights are all about values. We value all sorts of things as people that don’t really have a “factual” basis. I am clearly saying that I think that allowing people to pick their own life’s path once they go to college is a higher value than money. If what you were looking for from the beginning was some set of facts that would say it is worse for someone to be able to pick their kid’s major even if they are paying, then it was doomed from the start. i suppose in theory one could try and do some study that looks at families that paid and ones that did not, divide those into ones that forced the kid to study one thing against those that did not, etc. Clearly a study like that is almost impossible, due to the hundreds of variables that cannot be accounted for.</p>
<p>And finally, let’s take the last thing about choosing the chicken or spaghetti just because you are paying. That is a perfect example of what I am saying. There is no factual basis to decide whether that is right or wrong, it is so obviously a complete violation of human decency that no one would think it was right. It is the same principal as a dictatorship: “I have the power, so I control everything”. Obviously we cede certain powers and choices to authorities, even in a democracy. Experience and values of the culture in question tells us which ones of those are acceptable and which are not, not some equation or set of “facts”.</p>
<p>One thing I suppose we agree on is that there are people that have a different value judgement when it comes to this area of choosing for another because you are paying. Otherwise the topic wouldn’t have been a topic at all. I think I have made it clear on which side of this value judgement I fall, and how fundamental a value I think it is because to me it is about as personal as it gets. On a more practical level, if your child isn’t a responsible person by the time they are 18 with regard to this topic, picking their major isn’t going to help. Either you have failed as a parent in those 18 years and are just continuing to fail with that kind of behavior, or the kid has issues that are not going to be resolved by forcing them to do your bidding because of money. Also, to be quite frank, this would make more sense to discuss once you have kids. I know you think that is condescending or dismissive, but it is not. This is an area, as millions can tell you, where you have no idea until you are in it.</p>
<p>" if your child isn’t a responsible person by the time they are 18 with regard to this topic, picking their major isn’t going to help. Either you have failed as a parent in those 18 years and are just continuing to fail with that kind of behavior, or the kid has issues that are not going to be resolved by forcing them to do your bidding because of money"</p>
<p>Once again, a plea for less extreme language. After coming to CC, I am sure my kids are not AS “responsible” as those who post here, but I have to say they are not dramattically different from the kids I meet in real life. It is the CC posters that seem dramtically different from people I meet in real life. </p>
<p>CC has been an eye opening experience for me. Since my eyes have been opened, I have alos learned to take some of the “norms” shared with a grain of salt. After all, until I came here, I though my kids and I were reasonably “successful”, and on the surface at least, our community seems to agree. </p>
<p>Still, I wound up in this place, thanks to CC at least in part, where my D got accepted in a huge reach, very expensive school, and we had a decision to make. It had never occured to us she would go anywhere other than a UC. I am fully accepting of blame regarding not preparing her better to make a decision about spending $200,000 dollars by her 18th birthday. </p>
<p>So now what? I have failed, and it’s too late? There MAY be hope for us,but only if I try to make sense with regard to my own situation, of what CC posters are trying to tell me to do? </p>
<p>I suppose that is what I am trying to do. Is anyone saying that by virtue of reaching the the point of graduating high school, kids will not need any help making college application decisions, beyond some finite dollar amount? If not, then there most be some continuum of help, and perhaps itvaries with what you know about your kid. Personally, I can’t imagine going so far as to chose my childs major, and yet I CAN imagine refusing to pay for anything more than a community college, even if I could afford it, if my kid had not demonstrated the behaviors that think it takes to succed as a college student.</p>
<p>I can tell my kids have good judgement about friends, about the “truth”, and many other things. I think my kids are great. But I just don’t feel they understand the value of $200,000, and the sacrifices it will take to come up with it. I also can’t help but wonder if they understand the bearing their choices will have on their lifestyle, especially given "the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, not that I doubt they will manage.</p>
<p>“Mea culpa!” ( rendering garments, knashing teeth, beating breast…)</p>
<p>Does anybody mind commenting on what makes them think there kid is “ready” at the time they send in their applications?</p>