I don't know if this dean's observation is about helicopter parenting or risk aversion as much as it's about how bifurcated and ultra-high stakes the university/credential-pedigree system has become, and how essential it is to optimize for a certain outcome at all costs.

When I was high school age, the A students went to good universities and generally ended up with a good professional career, the B students went to state schools and had an average life in an office job. The C students went to community college and limped along. The D students went to trade school and at least had a shot at turning things around.

We're moving towards a world where the A++5.0GPA+awards+accolades students will go to the top universities and end up living in relative luxury, the A students maybe will finish college hamstrung with mountains of debt, and the rest? Walmart/Meth if they're lucky, prison if they're not. Competition among students is a complete slug-fest and every parent is doing whatever they can to juice the metrics that universities demand, at the expense of every other part of the student's development/upbringing. You don't want your kid left behind in the dirt.

> the A students maybe will finish college hamstrung with mountains of debt, and the rest? Walmart/Meth if they're lucky, prison if they're not.

This is the false dichotomy that’s causing students to incorrectly go to college when it might not be the best path. There is a massive gulf of the middle class you just glossed over between college and Walmart/meth: the trades. Working in skilled blue collar fields (electrician, contractor, plumber, diesel mechanic, etc) will likely give you a better life financially than someone who graduates with a 4 year BA.

I've seen it said a few times that there's a reason why electricians, contractors, plumbers, diesel mechanics, etc send their kids to college and it's because all those trades are hard on your body and a bit dangerous.

Yes they are a route to financial independence, but there's a hidden cost that a banker, marketer, SEO expert, programmer, manager, etc. does not have to pay.

In manual labor you get physically tired, your joints grow steadily more achy, your run the risk of injury - obviously it's unpleasant.

In mental labor you get fat and achy sitting at a desk all day, your sleep schedule gets messed up looking at artificial light constantly, your mental health degrades and your risk of suicide increases - obviously it's also unpleasant.

We can all agree the manual laborer's job is hard because no one can really escape manual labor. Even if your profession doesn't require you to lift a finger, other things in life like taking care of a home expose us to plenty of comparable tasks, and we can easily imagine how much worse it would be to do these tasks all the time. But the manual laborer can forego most of the negatives of office work which require prolonged and continuous exposure to things we would never experience in nature. Thus the manual laborer tends to see greener grass on the other side while the office worker does not.

Oh come on, do you really believe the drivel you just typed out?

Any office worker can do exercise to mitigate their risks, no labourer can magically make his bad back or destroyed knees better again.

I fail to see how exercise changes the light coming out of my monitor. Manual laborers can also mitigate their risks, but in neither case do all the issues completely disappear. As someone who's done both, I can tell you that the grass is not greener on the other side, and everyone else I know who has done both has encouraged their kids to at least seriously consider the trades.

I'm sure they fall into the same trap that college == success.

The trades are excellent careers. The issue is see with those careers is that people in the trades don't look ahead. No one wants to haul roofing shingles at 45 or crawling under houses at 50. A master of their trade commands a high hourly rate and should be looking at teaching opportunities, running their own shop opportunities, safety opportunities, or general project overview.

> I've seen it said a few times that there's a reason why electricians, contractors, plumbers, diesel mechanics, etc send their kids to college

It’s because they’ve been sold a lie that a degree is a free pass to the middle class. If you thought all your kid had to do for a middle class lifestyle was study differential literary analysis, you’d be onboard too.

I agree, I've some nephews/nieces in college and was talking to their parents about why they were getting them to start applying for tech internships in freshman year, sounded absurd to me. And I was telling them how they should be more adventurous with where they want to work and live after they graduate. But all they wanted to do was work in Silicon Valley ( they grew up around here, so I thought they would want to move and explore other parts of the country). But, no they did not want to. I think it was both risk-averseness and also sheer practicality that all the good tech jobs are here.

I see what you did there. Very subtle and gentle correction of the GP's misunderstanding of the phrase.

>I don't know if this dean's observation is about helicopter parenting or risk aversion as much as it's about how bifurcated and ultra-high stakes

From my perspective, these go hand-in-hand. The Meritocracy Trap outlines how the ultra-competitiveness has led parents to invest more and earlier in preparation for college. Excellent Sheep described how many Ivy League bound have to essentially declare their intention in grade school to follow the templated path to reach that goal. This causes a formulaic existence, which is underscored by an increase in the number of young adults who look at college as vocational training rather than to build a life philosophy. Meaning there is very little questioning why and instead just following the inertia of a goal that was predetermined when one was in elementary school.

Very little truth to what you wrote here. You can get into great universities with solid A’s. And you can certainly graduate from a state school with minimal to no debt.

I had pretty good grades but I couldn’t get into any great universities with my stats. Best I could do was UNC-CH.

The bifurcation is extremely real in my experience, and I’m not in the charmed class.

But your claim is built on certain assumptions that there is a certain path to get in based on “stats”. Sometimes you can improve your chances because there are other paths to get in. I don’t know if it’s still the case, but years back schools were clamoring to get veterans. I know some who were accepted to prestigious schools despite relatively underwhelming “stats” had they applied straight out of high school.

I’m not saying military service is for everybody, just that there are more paths than the well-worn templates most people attempt to emulate.

You're not wrong! But the classic "get good grades, get good scores, do A, B, C, D" gets you into a school like UNC in state at best. Most people don't have the opportunities to do the sorts of things that get people into top schools (and hoard opportunity).

Since when is UNC-CH not a great university?

I was in-state, where the acceptance rate is around ~50%.

Walmart/Meth is a pretty strong exaggeration. Things aren’t great without a degree, but they’re not (yet) impossible.

We're straying way off-topic here but I'd suggest that things are pretty terrible for significant numbers of people. As evidence (I'm not US-ian), I present this article [0], which actually tries to make the point that living standards have never been better. In my view, he fails, specifically with the following statement in para 5, "There would surely be a revolution in America if 90% of our citizens have suffered income stagnation or worse". I'd suggest that recent events and the fact that many tens of millions of people supported (and still support) Donald Trump, are proof of a slow-motion revolution in progress - a kind of cold-civil-war.

So, maybe parent was being colourful with the "Walmart/meth" exaggeration, but in terms of "effective equivalence" I'd say they are close to the mark.

[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-living-standards...

Yea it was a little exaggeration, but the trend is in the wrong direction. If things don't change, we're going to have no middle class in 20-30 years and probably full-on Elysium in 50-70 years.

Too focused on relative income distribution, not enough on standards of living.

Americans live in bigger houses with fewer people living in them, they own smart phones, cars, huge TVs, appliances, HVAC, video games, plenty of clothes. They get their goods delivered straight to their door, they have their food grown and prepared for them. This is an accurate description of lower class Americans.

While income inequality is real and worsening, I'm still not seeing evidence that this leads to bad outcomes.

So, lots of bread and circuses. Are they healthy? Are their grandchildren and great-grandchildren going to inherit a civilization that they would want to be born in to?

If a dog is fat it's somebody else's fault, if a person is fat it's their fault.

> Are their grandchildren and great-grandchildren going to inherit a civilization that they would want to be born in to?

How should I know how people's unborn children feel about a society which doesn't exist yet?

>If a dog is fat it's somebody else's fault, if a person is fat it's their fault.

I don't really care whom you blame, I care about the results. Our society could do much more to stop people from being fat and unhealthy, yet 70% of the country is overweight, and more people have chronic health problems than don't.

>How should I know how people's unborn children feel about a society which doesn't exist yet?

I'm not asking how the unborn children feel, I'm asking whether the existing people would want to be born into the civilization which they expect that their grandchildren and great-grandchildren will inherit.

> don't really care whom you blame, I care about the results. Our society could do much more to stop people from being fat and unhealthy, yet 70% of the country is overweight, and more people have chronic health problems than don't.

Unless you want members of society to walk around smacking soda and fried potato products out of people's hands, I'm not sure that I agree.

If we want to pool our resources as a people to solve problems for others, let's start with water scarcity, unstable/oppressive governments, and renewable energy. Please don't sign me up for forcing people onto weight watchers plans.

How about locking the soda and sugary snacks away with the cigarettes, instead of having them in your face (and your children's faces) in the checkout aisle? How about putting warning labels on them like cigarette cartons instead of cartoon pictures designed to get the attention of children?

How about devoting multiple hours of every school day in high school to getting students into great shape, so they don't start off their adult lives overweight?

There are many, many things we could easily do, but the people who run our civilization do not want them to be done. Those same people are the ones that are gaining more and more power over the people, by the way, as a consequence of the concentration of wealth.

What water scarcity problem is currently causing problems for 70% of the country?

The root of the problem is a lack of self control, and putting things in scarier packaging will not solve that problem. It's sort of like distributing tissues as a solution to the COVID pandemic, it's just addressing a symptom.

Why would we restrict our charity to this country? Let's solve real problems, which mostly exist in other countries. Unrestricted access to soda and Twinkies is not a real problem.

In addition, prohibition does not work. It doesn't work with alcohol, it doesn't work with drugs, it doesn't work with gambling, and it won't work with cake.

>The root of the problem is a lack of self control

So make it easier for people to control their own behavior, if you want to make a dent in the problem. Teach them how to be in good shape by actually making them do it as adolescents. Teenagers are already required to participate in gym class. Why don't we change gym class so that it actually does something for them?

>and putting things in scarier packaging will not solve that problem.

Do you think that the labeling on a package is irrelevant? Then why do companies spend so much money designing it? Why are they all bright flashy colors, rather than black, white, and grey?

>Why would we restrict our charity to this country?

Because this is where we live, and where our families live, and the quality of their lives is most dependent on what happens to the people here.

>Let's solve real problems, which mostly exist in other countries. Unrestricted access to soda and Twinkies is not a real problem.

70% of the country being overweight is a real problem.

>In addition, prohibition does not work.

I said nothing about prohibition. Having to ask the cashier to go get you your case of Pepsi is not the same as banning the sale of Pepsi.

So you don’t live in the US and only get your information from the media (who don’t sell clicks by saying everything is fine) but you’re willing to make bold statements about how we’re on the edge of a civil war?

Its often much easier looking in to see the problems than looking out. I would say that's also the impression I get too watching/reading your fox/CNN/CNBC channels.

Here in the UK we're suffering from the same malady and what brought this into focus for me was Brexit + the Grenfell fire.

Suddenly I saw people like those from my poor home town on TV (at one point it had the 3rd highest unemployment in the UK). And I hadn't seen anyone like that on TV for years. People with few opportunities, people ALL the UK media had been ignoring because they're not university educated and they say uncomfortable things.

When Jon Snow, a well know TV journalist over here, spoke about his experience meeting the Grenfell survivors and the accusations he had to face that they'd tried to talk to the press and been ignored, it really brought it into focus:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/aug/23/jon-snow-grenf...

I blame the popularity service degrees. My great great grandparents were gilded age robber barons. Their children earned service degrees (doctors, lawyers) and split things up and sold them off. Their children earned service degrees and worked a little while living off their trusts. Their children earned service degrees and worked hard to run in place. I got an engineering degree and put every penny I could get my hands on into starting a manufacturing business. I will not have my children groomed to serve others who actually achieve.

I understand your point, but don't think the Walmart/Meth comparison is fair. Walmart is full of hardworking people doing honorable work that provides for their families and contributes to their communities.

Agreed--not making them equivalent. It's a deliberately wide spectrum for folks with few opportunities. The overall point is that what the dean perceived as risk aversion may instead be the chilling effect of the growing lack of opportunity for all but the top 1% of the next few generations. If people want to nit pick about two words, I can't stop them.

What you said is horribly offensive and pretty eye opening about how you see the lives of middle and lower class Americans.

There are plenty of hard working, proud Americans of all races who never go to a fancy school or maybe never go to college at all, yet the have good paying jobs (maybe not good paying to you), live in good neighborhoods (again, probably ones you look down on), raise respectable kids who are kind (again, people who you’d never hang out with) and yes, they even shop or work at Walmart.

Wow, I don't know what brush you're trying to paint me with but it's the wrong one. I'm one of those B-C students who, through luck of when I was born, managed to grab a tiny bit of upward mobility and cobble together an OK middle-of-the-road life. No Ivy League track for me. If I was born today and took the same path, I'd probably be struggling a lot due to how bifurcated and winner-take-all things are getting. I look around today and am very worried that my child and her generation will not have any opportunities unless they're valedictorian. Those good paying jobs you talk about are good, but they're disappearing rapidly.

I don't speak for the parent poster but it seems abundantly clear they're decrying the widening gap between those with access to good-paying jobs and those who are deprived of opportunity.

Frankly, it seems like you're on the same side.

No, it’s the implication that without a college degree you have some shitty life deprived of opportunity. This is both paternalistic and condescending.

There is nothing wrong with making 80k a year in Iowa as an electrician and paying down a mortgage on a 250k house. That’s not a deprivation of opportunity.

80k a year’s a pretty good salary almost anywhere. There’s plenty in NYC who live on less.

GP wasn’t saying everyone in Idaho is a crack head or heroin junkie due to the unfulfilled nature of their work, they were saying there’s too many jobs in America at below living wages and there’s this huge huge gap between the working poor and the white collar that’s only expanding.

Trade schools are great and put out talented professionals who earn decent salaries.

Many people outside of white collar positions and Yale alumni live very rewarding, cultured, and fulfilling lives.

But it doesn’t mean we can’t as a society do better for our lower classes, and a lot of parents are understandably concerned about their children graduating with a mountain of debt, getting a job that pays like shit, not having access to health care, and living an unfulfilling life.

If your life is rewarding in those conditions it is despite your circumstance which certainly does not optimize for a stress free, meaningful and rewarding existence.

I certainly agree with you. I've no college degree and I'm making a good living.

I just didn't think the parent poster was saying otherwise.

Thank you for this comment. The elitist caste in America have gotten far too big for their britches. And then they wonder why Trump won and why we did not have a peaceful transfer of power for arguably the first time in our nation's history. Being born into comfort only takes a generation to wonder why doesn't everyone just "get more money?".

Is working for Walmart something you would aspire for your grandchildren to be doing as a career?

There's a British children's adventure film called "Swallows and Amazons". A family of children want to go on a sailing trip without adult supervision to camp on an island. Their mother sends a telegram to her husband, who's an officer on a navy ship asking his advice (or permission, it was another time). He sends a telegram back "If not duffers won't drown, if duffers better drowned".

It was originally a book, or actually a series of books, written and set in the 1930s. Great reading as a child, but to have such permissive parents - they barely make an appearance while their kids as young as 7 spend days at a time boating and camping - seemed as fanciful to me as Harry Potter. I wonder if it was really like that in the 30s.

Apart from the magic, Harry Potter is just the well-worn genre of "school stories" and the social structure of the school is basically that of a select British private school, complete with boarders and "houses" and so on. It really was like that in the 30s (see Roald Dahl's Boy, for another example, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalky_%26_Co.).

I think Swallows and Amazons is a little stretched from what would have been normal levels of parental contact, but not beyond what a reader of the time would have considered normal or reasonable.

Or pretty much any of Enid Blyton's books. As you say, probably an exaggerated view of childhood independence in upper middle class(?) England (and certainly there are American examples as well although boarding school is a less prominent feature), but not something wildly fantastical to many readers.

There are always older children around though, I think there was a much higher expectation that older children would take responsibility for the younger ones back then. S&A is adventure fiction so maybe a little exaggerated, but not outrageously so.

Personally I think the risk aversion has less to do with parenting and more just life experience. For the vast majority of human existence, high child mortality was much higher than today. Even for the wealthiest, watching some of your siblings die was simply a fact of life. It was only in the early 20th century that childhood death became uncommon, and even then these kids were being born to and raised by people who had grown up in such a world. My grandfather, for example, was the youngest of 12 and grew up in a household where no one expected all 12 to make it. The combination of an excessively large number of people and the desensitization to death (with maybe a little bit of lead paint thrown in for good measure) naturally leads to the view of life being cheap. These are the sorts of conditions that make wars that cost tens of millions of lives conceivable, but also the conditions where people are okay with being strapped to a rocket with only a bit of testing. The baby boomers were really the first generation raised entirely with the expectation that they would live, and late genX/early millennial children were likely the first in history to be raised by parents who had been raised with that mindset. The longer you expect to live, the more sensible risk aversion is.

> But, yeah, I imagine people used to accomplish more before everyone got so damned risk adverse.

I'm looking at you GameStop... (tongue-in-cheek)