I think you have made a really good list, and I think you are right that "I have absolutely no idea how they could be changed without changing the entire culture" but I think they are 100% all downstream of the "zero-sum" mentality. (Explicitly in the case of any of the "status competition" items like "oh we need 5 sports and 3 charitabl…
I think you have made a really good list, and I think you are right that "I have absolutely no idea how they could be changed without changing the entire culture" but I think they are 100% all downstream of the "zero-sum" mentality. (Explicitly in the case of any of the "status competition" items like "oh we need 5 sports and 3 charitable activities on your college application")
I'm certainly debating with my kids about the vacations, toys and sports they want to do - and of course, "but Timmy has one" is a big factor. I've literally talked to other parents at school of similarly aged kids and we've made a pact to help each other by not giving a phone to our kids)
I think you could go back to the root of the parent shaming thing: it was a tactic by Person A to affect how Person B raised their kids, so that B's kids would be more beneficial to A. As mentioned in the article, Lenore Skenazy's tactic (shaming and reverse-shaming) is essentially to lower the social status of giving kids wealth/material/stuff (you're hurting your kid by giving them an iphone, screen time makes them depressed - Haidt) and raise the status of the other stuff (walking to the store grants independence!) The entire social stigma around "spoiled" kids seems to work in this direction (though can definitely be taken too far).
I don't think it would be TOO impossible to slowly change culture to value that stuff more.
Secondarily, I think general good society policies that reduced the cost of housing/education/transport and parenting-assistive labor (nannies) for double worker households would help for this and many other reasons.
Reverse shaming could work if applied to the norms and social pressure aspect of competing through giving kids expensive things that were luxuries well within living memory. If instead of making iPhones and expensive holidays the norm, these were viewed as disastrous indulgences that undermined a child’s long term wellbeing, the way educated parents these days restrict rich foods and discourage overeating among their offspring. So people ambitious for their child could be shamed out of such practices.
However I think it would be very hard to reverse-shame parents from competing to give their children educational advantages. These are so ingrained as the base requirement of being a ‘good parent’. So the arms race of extracurricular activities and fighting to get Junior accepted by the most prestigious schools will continue. And resources will be poured into that arms race, and most parents will get the message that they can only afford one or two kids.
"So the arms race of extracurricular activities and fighting to get Junior accepted by the most prestigious schools will continue" but only until those schools change their selection criteria. Select on skin colour, height or IQ and parents priorities and efforts (so far as they can) will change accordingly.
The schools benefit from the arms race. Their status is raised and they will probably attract more resources as long as high-status parents are fighting to push their kids up the greasy pole of education.
I recall in NZ about 95% of school students go to state funded schools with that state funding inversely proportional to the 'wealth' of their students.
Most high status schools, like Wellington Boys College, actually receive, combining state funding with donations and their commercial business profits (foreigh students), receive less $ than most high schools educating students from the poorest NZ neighbourhoods. Actually the worst off schools are the mid-ranked (middle class) schools.
You might have overlooked my words about high status parents. The school system in NZ is warped by the obsession with ‘grammar zones’ and getting your kids into the ‘right’ school. Those schools that play the game successfully do well.
"The school system in NZ is warped by the obsession" with 'decile zoning'. These were set up by a Ministry of Education that believes that children are 'blank slates' ie poor children do poorly at school because they are poor (ie poor children are unsuccessful because they are discriminated against by rich people in society).
Real people don't actually believe this. So they (most parents) interpreted the 'deciles' as a sign that high(er) decile schools are more effective schools because their students are ultimately more successful.
The NZ Initiative examined actual school effectiveness (between about 2010 and 2015) and found that it was more or less independent of 'decile' (the best performed schools were a few private (not state funded) schools). Actual effectiveness (ie value add) was a product of school specific characteristics ie quality of Headmaster/school admin and teacher quality.
I think the decile madness supports my point. Parents, especially those ambitious for their children, were desperate for a badge of quality education that supported their desire. They seized on deciles.
Yes, "They [parents] seized on deciles" because the policy makers in the Ministry believed in a model of human nature that has been demonstrably proven wrong by the behaviour of parents.
>>However I think it would be very hard to reverse-shame parents from competing to give their children educational advantages. These are so ingrained as the base requirement of being a ‘good parent’.
In America, yes. In Sweden it is seen as shameful to try to educate your child more than the public school system offers. (I have personally been parent shamed by my then about seven-year-old daughter's teacher because I showed her my daughter's home-math book in order to demonstrate my daughter's real level of math ability.)
This is so outlandish as to be a pathology of extreme egalitarianism which, I suppose, prevails among Swedish educationists. Nothing of normal human can be inferred from such a pathology.
Most probably it is tall poppy syndrome. I don't think most Swedes know about the American credential arms race. At least not the type of Swedes who become the teachers of young children. I have never heard anyone say "we shouldn't do this here". We just don't because there are no elite universities anyway. No elite universities, so nothing special to compete for.
Thanks for the insight into Swedish norms. I agree that in the USA (and probably most of the anglosphere) the ideal of investing in your children’s educational advantage has been mainstreamed for middle class families. Immigration from China has reinforced this, at least in New Zealand, where I live.
I think you have made a really good list, and I think you are right that "I have absolutely no idea how they could be changed without changing the entire culture" but I think they are 100% all downstream of the "zero-sum" mentality. (Explicitly in the case of any of the "status competition" items like "oh we need 5 sports and 3 charitable activities on your college application")
I'm certainly debating with my kids about the vacations, toys and sports they want to do - and of course, "but Timmy has one" is a big factor. I've literally talked to other parents at school of similarly aged kids and we've made a pact to help each other by not giving a phone to our kids)
I think you could go back to the root of the parent shaming thing: it was a tactic by Person A to affect how Person B raised their kids, so that B's kids would be more beneficial to A. As mentioned in the article, Lenore Skenazy's tactic (shaming and reverse-shaming) is essentially to lower the social status of giving kids wealth/material/stuff (you're hurting your kid by giving them an iphone, screen time makes them depressed - Haidt) and raise the status of the other stuff (walking to the store grants independence!) The entire social stigma around "spoiled" kids seems to work in this direction (though can definitely be taken too far).
I don't think it would be TOO impossible to slowly change culture to value that stuff more.
Secondarily, I think general good society policies that reduced the cost of housing/education/transport and parenting-assistive labor (nannies) for double worker households would help for this and many other reasons.
Reverse shaming could work if applied to the norms and social pressure aspect of competing through giving kids expensive things that were luxuries well within living memory. If instead of making iPhones and expensive holidays the norm, these were viewed as disastrous indulgences that undermined a child’s long term wellbeing, the way educated parents these days restrict rich foods and discourage overeating among their offspring. So people ambitious for their child could be shamed out of such practices.
However I think it would be very hard to reverse-shame parents from competing to give their children educational advantages. These are so ingrained as the base requirement of being a ‘good parent’. So the arms race of extracurricular activities and fighting to get Junior accepted by the most prestigious schools will continue. And resources will be poured into that arms race, and most parents will get the message that they can only afford one or two kids.
Interesting thought experiment however
"So the arms race of extracurricular activities and fighting to get Junior accepted by the most prestigious schools will continue" but only until those schools change their selection criteria. Select on skin colour, height or IQ and parents priorities and efforts (so far as they can) will change accordingly.
The schools benefit from the arms race. Their status is raised and they will probably attract more resources as long as high-status parents are fighting to push their kids up the greasy pole of education.
Umm, you're clearly not referring to NZ schools.
I recall in NZ about 95% of school students go to state funded schools with that state funding inversely proportional to the 'wealth' of their students.
Most high status schools, like Wellington Boys College, actually receive, combining state funding with donations and their commercial business profits (foreigh students), receive less $ than most high schools educating students from the poorest NZ neighbourhoods. Actually the worst off schools are the mid-ranked (middle class) schools.
You might have overlooked my words about high status parents. The school system in NZ is warped by the obsession with ‘grammar zones’ and getting your kids into the ‘right’ school. Those schools that play the game successfully do well.
"The school system in NZ is warped by the obsession" with 'decile zoning'. These were set up by a Ministry of Education that believes that children are 'blank slates' ie poor children do poorly at school because they are poor (ie poor children are unsuccessful because they are discriminated against by rich people in society).
Real people don't actually believe this. So they (most parents) interpreted the 'deciles' as a sign that high(er) decile schools are more effective schools because their students are ultimately more successful.
The NZ Initiative examined actual school effectiveness (between about 2010 and 2015) and found that it was more or less independent of 'decile' (the best performed schools were a few private (not state funded) schools). Actual effectiveness (ie value add) was a product of school specific characteristics ie quality of Headmaster/school admin and teacher quality.
I think the decile madness supports my point. Parents, especially those ambitious for their children, were desperate for a badge of quality education that supported their desire. They seized on deciles.
Don't blame the parents!
Yes, "They [parents] seized on deciles" because the policy makers in the Ministry believed in a model of human nature that has been demonstrably proven wrong by the behaviour of parents.
>>However I think it would be very hard to reverse-shame parents from competing to give their children educational advantages. These are so ingrained as the base requirement of being a ‘good parent’.
In America, yes. In Sweden it is seen as shameful to try to educate your child more than the public school system offers. (I have personally been parent shamed by my then about seven-year-old daughter's teacher because I showed her my daughter's home-math book in order to demonstrate my daughter's real level of math ability.)
This is so outlandish as to be a pathology of extreme egalitarianism which, I suppose, prevails among Swedish educationists. Nothing of normal human can be inferred from such a pathology.
"In Sweden it is seen as shameful to try to educate your child more than the public school system offers."
Is this because of tall poppy syndrome or to limit run-away credential arms races? The latter is much more reasonable imo.
Most probably it is tall poppy syndrome. I don't think most Swedes know about the American credential arms race. At least not the type of Swedes who become the teachers of young children. I have never heard anyone say "we shouldn't do this here". We just don't because there are no elite universities anyway. No elite universities, so nothing special to compete for.
Thanks for the insight into Swedish norms. I agree that in the USA (and probably most of the anglosphere) the ideal of investing in your children’s educational advantage has been mainstreamed for middle class families. Immigration from China has reinforced this, at least in New Zealand, where I live.
Shame about the weather. Summer will arrive one day.