11 ms·

There are always outliers, but I believe that in America today, academic achievement is almost entirely determined by parental involvement (whether it's time or

There are always outliers, but I believe that in America today, academic achievement is almost entirely determined by parental involvement (whether it's time or money). > How do you respond to the criticism that the problems you're describing affect only privileged kids? I was really disappointed by this question and the answers the authors gave. Firstly because, this kind of parenting actually does have a large impact on underprivileged kids. It's the reason their failure is virtually guaranteed relative to the privileged kids. The underprivileged kid is one student, competing against the privileged kid, who is essentially a multi-person team of cheaters with a bankroll. Secondly because, the answers the authors gave to the question pretty clearly demonstrate that they're only thinking of this subject from their perspective. And it sounds like their perspective is that of the parents to the privileged kids. This could've been an article about parental involvement in academics and the impact it has on fairness and meritocracy and social mobility. Instead it's some rich ladies talking about how their kids would've been even more privileged if they did a little less of their homework for them.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Income inequality->Two earner family->less parental involvement->vicious cycle While that is a gross oversimplification, it would do wonders to increase the quality of life for families who elect to have one earner only, with the other (gender regardless) providing more time and resources towards child development.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Hmm most middle class and higher families in the states are two earners families with the lower middle class and downwards having one or both parents unemployed or intermediately employed. The days of the American nuclear family with the dad having a career and the mom becoming a world class housewife are pretty much over. And considering that low income / low skill jobs are more available to men and that low income jobs will not be able to fund childcare that pushes lower class families to become single earner families even more.
  - plonh 11y ago
    When you consider that a full time homemaker does about $60k/yr worth of work during the weekdays , a single income household with a honemaker doesn't look so bad compared to a meduam dual income household.
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      Where was that number pulled off? That's 10K over the median household income in the US. Any how I wasn't saying that having a homemaker ins't economically sound under certain economic conditions i was saying that it's less common in middle class and higher families than in lower class families. When both parents are educated and have a career they don't want to give that up, when both of them make enough to allow them selves to continue to work especially after thee infancy period they are more likely to do so. Upper classes also have higher chances of having grandparents who've retired earlier and are also actually being able to live on their retirement and are able to help with childcare. They are also more likely to work in companies that provide childcare assistance or services to their employees. Combine all those factors and many more and you get to a point where income inequality actually forces people to become stay at home mom/dad's while the more financially stable classes can afford to continue with their careers.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > Where was that number pulled off? It's closer to $96-100K/year actually. In a lot of cases, its economically rational for one spouse to stay home and take care of the house when that much value is provided versus a traditional job. http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/blogs/on-parenting/post/a-homemakers-real-salary/2012/02/01/gIQAh7czhQ_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/blogs/on-parenting/post/a-h... http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/06/mint_estimate_of_how_much_stay_at_home_moms_and_homemakers_should_earn_in_salary_.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/06/mint_estimat...
        dogma1138 11y ago
        Lol Slate, and the post's sources for their numbers is this http://blog.mint.com/consumer-iq/how-much-is-a-homemaker-worth-012012/ http://blog.mint.com/consumer-iq/how-much-is-a-homemaker-wor... which i really don't know how to react to this the onion has better sources... If a stay at home mom is worth 100k then a full time housekeeper/nanny should earn 100k? The highest figures I've seen in NYC with an educated nanny/housekeepr/superperson (nursing, child development really wierd stuff) is on average 700 a week for a 10.5 hours work day and that's in very very upscale areas while usually taking care of 2-3 children. So yeah they'll be earning about 50K a year while taking care of the 1% of the 1%, while in Austin or Chicago for example that figures drops to 23-24000 for the same service. Sorry but a click bait blog http://blog.mint.com/ http://blog.mint.com/ for a budge management application https://www.mint.com/ https://www.mint.com/ isn't really a reliable source in my books, if those numbers were even close to being a reality on average or under any case you would see pretty much every other family in the states where the dad is a stay at home dad and the mom goes to become a super(rich)nany or vise versa...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- pauleastlund 11y ago
  This makes intuitive sense to me but doesn't match up with what I've seen anecdotally. I lived in some very wealthy suburbs of NYC, and nearly every family was a two-earner family. My wife and I also homeschool, and have met a bunch of other homeschoolers both in CT and now in CO. By your logic, you'd expect the primary earners in the homeschooling families to earn more than in the average family, but in my experience the reverse is true. You're right that there's a level of income at which one parent staying home is just not a plausible choice. But it's a lot lower than I'd expected -- I've met some homeschooling families that are doing extremely well by their children at a substantially lower income level than I'd thought feasible. I think the issue here in most cases is less a problem of economics than of cultural values. (Before anyone reads anything pernicious into that, all I mean is that I think American culture overvalues possessions and professional accomplishments and undervalues family in specific and relationships in general.)
- cafard 11y ago
  Most of the parents I knew at my son's (private, not inexpensive) schools had two parents working. It was sometimes the case that one worked less (as a substitute teacher part time, maybe). But the one-earner families tended to be outliers.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Spooky23 11y ago
The flip side is that the fate of my kids future and my family's future can be thrown off track by random shit that happens in school. When the world was normal, this stuff didn't happen. But it isn't anymore. Your goofy startup building Über for lawnmowers will only hire candidates who signal "A player, 10x rockstar". So what do you expect people to do?
- yuliyp 11y ago
  "the fate of my kids future and my family's future can be thrown off track by random shit" That's life.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    Exactly. Don't expect folks to sit idly by and let life happen. If their behavior seems bizarre, perhaps addressing the root cause would help?
mc32 11y ago
>This could've been an article about parental involvement in academics and the impact it has on fairness and meritocracy and social mobility. There are parents at all social levels who are very involved in their children's academics and view the school system as only one component of their children's academic achievement (and as a consequence their chances at succeeding professionally). There are other parents who see the school system as _the_ only tool and the only institution with the responsibility to educate their children --that is a great mistake and to the detriment of their children. I've seem this parental attitude in both poor parents and middle class parents. I've been places where every extra penny earned by a parent go to their children --they forgo any non essentials in their lives in order that their children have a better chance. They more or less see the escape from poverty as a multi-generational effort and are willing to put their part in wholeheartedly. In exchange, the parents have expectations from their children as the parents enter old age. So, academic achievement can be reached even for the poor kids, so long as their society and the individuals accept other means of achieving this end. It happens with some immigrant groups within the US as well, so it's not unheard of in the US. And it's not only the economically privileged who can achieve academically.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  Well, good to hear that it's possible for two generations to destroy any chance at enjoying their lives they may ever have had to pursue money above all else. We'd better encourage more of that /s.
  - mc32 11y ago
    I think it shows some societies and people are willing to take the long view. It's better than just hoping something good will happen. Or that a government in shining armor will come to the rescue. They understand that some sacrifice of more or less status symbols, do provide a vehicle to success for their offspring. In addition, to many of them, joy comes in the form of seeing their offspring do better than themselves. So, to them sacrifice does not equate to not enjoying their lives. Their state of mind is different.
  - TWAndrews 11y ago
dominotw 11y ago
Yep its funny that all the folks who wax eloquent on social media about societal inequality balk at the idea of sending their kids to schools where they might have to mingle with kids from less fortunate upbringing. This disgusting hypocrisy is not only normalized but is actually encouraged. Want to end inequality? Go live in a non segregated communities, support/start/educate local businesses. Stop sending your kids to segregated schools. And for god's sake shut the fuck up on twitter.
- rancur 11y ago
  > might have to mingle with kids from less fortunate upbringing considering how much damage this has done to my own vision, focus, and inspiration; I don't have the slightest bit of problem with this. I'm well out of university btw, and still learning how to protect myself from it.
  - killerbat00 11y ago
    can you expand a bit on the damage you've felt?
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      I can't speak for the parent commenter, but from what I've seen some communities and social groups are like a bunch of crabs in a bucket -- if one tries to climb out, the others pull it back down. Anyone who is smarter, more ambitious, or more dedicated than these groups will be ostracized and ridiculed until they conform or drop out. The vicious, vile harassment of which some people are capable is disgusting. Anyone who begrudges a parent who wants to live in a good community has never felt the brunt of living in a bad one.
      - rancur 11y ago
        prejudice like this is, I feel, a little easier to filter, because it's so obvious and in your face. Much more dangerous is the subtle, nonchalant shrug of the shoulders at the suffering of other members of humanity; the faces with muscles evading the responsibility of a shape; the halfhearted passion that exposes you to a toxic awareness of the pointlessness of their own life-- where only a bit of interest remains, shrouded behind friendliness, in smoothing over yours. the more of them I meet, the more I understand why my mother made the sacrifices she made to put me in a good environment, push me into a good college, etc. I owe her so much.
cafard 11y ago
Parental involvement, time or money? Well, the money can go to a mortgage on a house in a good school district or to private schools. In what observations I was able to make over the years as parent of any only child in private schools, there just wasn't that much of the helicopter parent thing. I don't think, once the kids were past the age of elementary school projects like "build an Indian village" or "science projects", there was even that much direct involvement in the work. (I can say that apart from a bit of harassment with language drills in 7th and 8th grades, I had no involvement in the work in middle and high school.) There is the effect on children of growing up in a household where there are books around, where the effects of education show in the topics and manner of discussions at the dinner table. That I don't think you can get away from. It existed a hundred years ago, and will continue to.
gyardley 11y ago
The percentage of people who actually value fairness / meritocracy / social mobility over the personal outcomes of their own children is probably in the low single digits.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

Income inequality->Two earner family->less parental involvement->vicious cycle While that is a gross oversimplification, it would do wonders to increase the quality of life for families who elect to have one earner only, with the other (gender regardless) providing more time and resources towards child development.

dogma1138 11y ago
Hmm most middle class and higher families in the states are two earners families with the lower middle class and downwards having one or both parents unemployed or intermediately employed. The days of the American nuclear family with the dad having a career and the mom becoming a world class housewife are pretty much over. And considering that low income / low skill jobs are more available to men and that low income jobs will not be able to fund childcare that pushes lower class families to become single earner families even more.
- plonh 11y ago
  When you consider that a full time homemaker does about $60k/yr worth of work during the weekdays , a single income household with a honemaker doesn't look so bad compared to a meduam dual income household.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Where was that number pulled off? That's 10K over the median household income in the US. Any how I wasn't saying that having a homemaker ins't economically sound under certain economic conditions i was saying that it's less common in middle class and higher families than in lower class families. When both parents are educated and have a career they don't want to give that up, when both of them make enough to allow them selves to continue to work especially after thee infancy period they are more likely to do so. Upper classes also have higher chances of having grandparents who've retired earlier and are also actually being able to live on their retirement and are able to help with childcare. They are also more likely to work in companies that provide childcare assistance or services to their employees. Combine all those factors and many more and you get to a point where income inequality actually forces people to become stay at home mom/dad's while the more financially stable classes can afford to continue with their careers.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      > Where was that number pulled off? It's closer to $96-100K/year actually. In a lot of cases, its economically rational for one spouse to stay home and take care of the house when that much value is provided versus a traditional job. http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/blogs/on-parenting/post/a-homemakers-real-salary/2012/02/01/gIQAh7czhQ_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/blogs/on-parenting/post/a-h... http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/06/mint_estimate_of_how_much_stay_at_home_moms_and_homemakers_should_earn_in_salary_.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/02/06/mint_estimat...
      - dogma1138 11y ago
        Lol Slate, and the post's sources for their numbers is this http://blog.mint.com/consumer-iq/how-much-is-a-homemaker-worth-012012/ http://blog.mint.com/consumer-iq/how-much-is-a-homemaker-wor... which i really don't know how to react to this the onion has better sources... If a stay at home mom is worth 100k then a full time housekeeper/nanny should earn 100k? The highest figures I've seen in NYC with an educated nanny/housekeepr/superperson (nursing, child development really wierd stuff) is on average 700 a week for a 10.5 hours work day and that's in very very upscale areas while usually taking care of 2-3 children. So yeah they'll be earning about 50K a year while taking care of the 1% of the 1%, while in Austin or Chicago for example that figures drops to 23-24000 for the same service. Sorry but a click bait blog http://blog.mint.com/ http://blog.mint.com/ for a budge management application https://www.mint.com/ https://www.mint.com/ isn't really a reliable source in my books, if those numbers were even close to being a reality on average or under any case you would see pretty much every other family in the states where the dad is a stay at home dad and the mom goes to become a super(rich)nany or vise versa...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
pauleastlund 11y ago
This makes intuitive sense to me but doesn't match up with what I've seen anecdotally. I lived in some very wealthy suburbs of NYC, and nearly every family was a two-earner family. My wife and I also homeschool, and have met a bunch of other homeschoolers both in CT and now in CO. By your logic, you'd expect the primary earners in the homeschooling families to earn more than in the average family, but in my experience the reverse is true. You're right that there's a level of income at which one parent staying home is just not a plausible choice. But it's a lot lower than I'd expected -- I've met some homeschooling families that are doing extremely well by their children at a substantially lower income level than I'd thought feasible. I think the issue here in most cases is less a problem of economics than of cultural values. (Before anyone reads anything pernicious into that, all I mean is that I think American culture overvalues possessions and professional accomplishments and undervalues family in specific and relationships in general.)
cafard 11y ago
Most of the parents I knew at my son's (private, not inexpensive) schools had two parents working. It was sometimes the case that one worked less (as a substitute teacher part time, maybe). But the one-earner families tended to be outliers.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Spooky23 11y ago

The flip side is that the fate of my kids future and my family's future can be thrown off track by random shit that happens in school. When the world was normal, this stuff didn't happen. But it isn't anymore. Your goofy startup building Über for lawnmowers will only hire candidates who signal "A player, 10x rockstar". So what do you expect people to do?

yuliyp 11y ago
"the fate of my kids future and my family's future can be thrown off track by random shit" That's life.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  Exactly. Don't expect folks to sit idly by and let life happen. If their behavior seems bizarre, perhaps addressing the root cause would help?

mc32 11y ago

>This could've been an article about parental involvement in academics and the impact it has on fairness and meritocracy and social mobility. There are parents at all social levels who are very involved in their children's academics and view the school system as only one component of their children's academic achievement (and as a consequence their chances at succeeding professionally). There are other parents who see the school system as _the_ only tool and the only institution with the responsibility to educate their children --that is a great mistake and to the detriment of their children. I've seem this parental attitude in both poor parents and middle class parents. I've been places where every extra penny earned by a parent go to their children --they forgo any non essentials in their lives in order that their children have a better chance. They more or less see the escape from poverty as a multi-generational effort and are willing to put their part in wholeheartedly. In exchange, the parents have expectations from their children as the parents enter old age. So, academic achievement can be reached even for the poor kids, so long as their society and the individuals accept other means of achieving this end. It happens with some immigrant groups within the US as well, so it's not unheard of in the US. And it's not only the economically privileged who can achieve academically.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Well, good to hear that it's possible for two generations to destroy any chance at enjoying their lives they may ever have had to pursue money above all else. We'd better encourage more of that /s.
- mc32 11y ago
  I think it shows some societies and people are willing to take the long view. It's better than just hoping something good will happen. Or that a government in shining armor will come to the rescue. They understand that some sacrifice of more or less status symbols, do provide a vehicle to success for their offspring. In addition, to many of them, joy comes in the form of seeing their offspring do better than themselves. So, to them sacrifice does not equate to not enjoying their lives. Their state of mind is different.
- TWAndrews 11y ago

dominotw 11y ago

Yep its funny that all the folks who wax eloquent on social media about societal inequality balk at the idea of sending their kids to schools where they might have to mingle with kids from less fortunate upbringing. This disgusting hypocrisy is not only normalized but is actually encouraged. Want to end inequality? Go live in a non segregated communities, support/start/educate local businesses. Stop sending your kids to segregated schools. And for god's sake shut the fuck up on twitter.

rancur 11y ago
> might have to mingle with kids from less fortunate upbringing considering how much damage this has done to my own vision, focus, and inspiration; I don't have the slightest bit of problem with this. I'm well out of university btw, and still learning how to protect myself from it.
- killerbat00 11y ago
  can you expand a bit on the damage you've felt?
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    I can't speak for the parent commenter, but from what I've seen some communities and social groups are like a bunch of crabs in a bucket -- if one tries to climb out, the others pull it back down. Anyone who is smarter, more ambitious, or more dedicated than these groups will be ostracized and ridiculed until they conform or drop out. The vicious, vile harassment of which some people are capable is disgusting. Anyone who begrudges a parent who wants to live in a good community has never felt the brunt of living in a bad one.
    - rancur 11y ago
      prejudice like this is, I feel, a little easier to filter, because it's so obvious and in your face. Much more dangerous is the subtle, nonchalant shrug of the shoulders at the suffering of other members of humanity; the faces with muscles evading the responsibility of a shape; the halfhearted passion that exposes you to a toxic awareness of the pointlessness of their own life-- where only a bit of interest remains, shrouded behind friendliness, in smoothing over yours. the more of them I meet, the more I understand why my mother made the sacrifices she made to put me in a good environment, push me into a good college, etc. I owe her so much.

cafard 11y ago

Parental involvement, time or money? Well, the money can go to a mortgage on a house in a good school district or to private schools. In what observations I was able to make over the years as parent of any only child in private schools, there just wasn't that much of the helicopter parent thing. I don't think, once the kids were past the age of elementary school projects like "build an Indian village" or "science projects", there was even that much direct involvement in the work. (I can say that apart from a bit of harassment with language drills in 7th and 8th grades, I had no involvement in the work in middle and high school.) There is the effect on children of growing up in a household where there are books around, where the effects of education show in the topics and manner of discussions at the dinner table. That I don't think you can get away from. It existed a hundred years ago, and will continue to.

gyardley 11y ago

The percentage of people who actually value fairness / meritocracy / social mobility over the personal outcomes of their own children is probably in the low single digits.