Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Parenting arms race article

I discussed this because "Price of Privilege" was brought up in the topic.
And it happens to be front and center of something I am doing. Her point is about doing for your child instead of them doing for themselves. So you arrange playdate with KidA, drop them off at 3:30 and pick up at 5. Instead of DD going out the door, finding KidA and KidB, maybe C. Then they brainstorm what to do, do their playing and DD knows she has to be home by 5:30 and has the responsibility of coming home instead of me looking for her. Not that they don't do a little brainstorming about play but the huge amount of toys in the house helps. Instead of meeting up emptying handed and figuring out next steps. Levine thinks that these simple steps help build the skills necessary to survive. And the parental arms race and blueprinting each year through to college creates a problem in college and beyond.
Since reading the book, I have taken a conscious step back and said, "figure it out," I can't always fix it, when I can.

It is an umbrella term, often used to cover a wide range of overzealous parenting activities, ranging from the relatively benign to the downright disastrous. Overinvolvement refers to unnecessary involvement. It is usually, but not always, ill advised, and some children can be remarkably forgiving about this sort of behavior. I tend to think of overinvolvement as the things we do for our kids -- the forgotten dishes we wash, the unmade beds we straighten, the editing we do on our child's writing assignments. But overinvolvement stops short of psychologically manipulating the child. It is more likely to slow progress than to damage children. Intrusion, on the other hand, is always unhelpful, if not damaging.

Both intrusion and overinvolvement prevent the development of the kinds of skills that children need to be successful: the ability to be a self-starter, the willingness to engage in trial-and-error learning, the ability to delay gratification, to tolerate frustration, to show self control, to learn from mistakes and to be a flexible and creative thinker. Kids who develop these skills have a large toolbox to dig into, both to enrich their lives and to help them problem-solve.

What my professor was talking about was not abject, crushing, demoralizing suffering, but a more tempered form of discomfort and struggle. She was not advocating throwing our kids into the deep end of life and letting them sink or swim. What she was talking about was allowing them to face adversity while they still had a safety net, letting them stumble over little obstacles as practice runs at life’s larger challenges. Noted psychologist Lev Vygotsky talked about the concept of scaffolding—a way of providing appropriate support to children to allow them to stretch beyond their current abilities. As parents practicing the art of benign neglect, that’s what we try to do. If we do everything for our kids, if we smooth out every bump in the road, if we do everything in our power to remove pain, challenge, and discomfort from their young lives, we deny them the opportunity to learn, to grow, and to develop the coping skills they will need as they become independent adults.

When I think about the skills I want my son to develop, I want him to be secure. I want him to be confident in his own abilities. I want him to struggle through things, work them out on his own, ask for help when needed, and bounce back when things go wrong. I want him to be determined and resilient. In order to do all of this, sometimes I need to do nothing. I need to give him the chance to fail. I need to let him fall down, but be there to pick him up. This is what separates benign neglect from just plain neglect. I need to know where he is. I need to know what he is doing. I need to know that I’ve put the sharp knives out of his reach. It means, though, that sometimes I need to not intervene even when I so very much want to.

At the heart of the Tools of the Mind methodology is a simple but surprising idea: that the key to developing self-regulation is play, and lots of it. But not just any play. The necessary ingredient is what Leong and Bodrova call “mature dramatic play”: complex, extended make-believe scenarios, involving multiple children and lasting for hours, even days. If you want to succeed in school and in life, they say, you first need to do what Abigail and Jocelyn and Henry have done every school day for the past two years: spend hour after hour dressing up in firefighter hats and wedding gowns, cooking make-believe hamburgers and pouring nonexistent tea, doing the hard, serious work of playing pretend.

Everyone reading this thread would be amazed to discover the percentage of Ivy (and SLAC/Elite) college student offspring of our acquaintances/colleagues who have "chosen" their children's majors in college.


I'm truly not joking. These are children 17-21 years of age in colleges and universities from Brown to Cornell to Princeton whose parents have picked what they will major in. They openly admit that. They are astonished that we are permitting our 14yo to make this choice for herself.

I cannot even wrap my head around dictating such a thing to my daughter.

I'm truly not joking. These are children 17-21 years of age in colleges and universities from Brown to Cornell to Princeton whose parents have picked what they will major in. They openly admit that. They are astonished that we are permitting our 14yo to make this choice for herself.

I cannot even wrap my head around dictating such a thing to my daughter.

Now, the middle one went to DC, did become a lawyer but worked for the Feds, has a very high position, will get an amazing defined benefit plan -- it is the Federal govt. Plus he worked as an aid to z governor for 8 years and gets that pension.
Who needs wealth with that?

Everyone reading this thread would be amazed to discover the percentage of Ivy (and SLAC/Elite) college student offspring of our acquaintances/colleagues who have "chosen" their children's majors in college.


I'm truly not joking. These are children 17-21 years of age in colleges and universities from Brown to Cornell to Princeton whose parents have picked what they will major in. They openly admit that. They are astonished that we are permitting our 14yo to make this choice for herself.

I cannot even wrap my head around dictating such a thing to my daughter.

Who has earned a merit scholarship, right? I'll be more disposed to spend 4*$65K = $260K to get my child a degree in computer science than gender studies. Colleges cannot expect parents to fork over enormous sums of money but then butt out. I understand that forcing a child to major in something that does not interest him is a bad idea both intellectually and career wise. But the intersection of interest and practicality needs to be found.