The opposite of overscheduled

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody explain the philosophy behind having no organized activities or enrichment (music lessons, language lessons, or tutoring) for your child? I'm talking about situations where there is plenty of money to pay for them and the child has requested them. Parents don't work unreasonable hours, so it's not a question of time. They just never get around to signing up for music lessons, soccer teams, art camps, chess clubs, sailing lessons, etc... I know that most people consider the UMC kids of the DMV to be overscheduled. But it doesn't seem any more healthy to do no activities or zero enrichment. These are not free range kids either. They don't have any interest in exploring more than their own street nor would the parents allow that.

Music lessons? Like the kind where you pay a zillion dollars for lessons but getting kid to practice turns into a battle so it's a big money sink?
Language lessons? What kid asks for or enjoys that?
Tutoring? You know some kids are smart and don't need tutors?

Our kids don't do activities because we work full time, and they spend 9-10 hours a day in school+aftercare, and we are all tired at the end of the day. They are learning piano using an app on their ipads. They don't like playing sports. They do art and creative activities constantly at home. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen to them if they don't have sailing lessons.

MCPS and other school systems offer free tutoring even for smart kids, like mine.
Language lessons - mine asks for it.
Music lessons - yes we battle to practice but when we suggest stopping them kid gets upset.

It sounds like it's really about you, no the kids. They might enjoy an art class, for example. You don't learn piano on an app. Funny how screen time is ok but activities are not. Its really you are tired and cannot be bothered.

I find a lot of families whose children do few or zero ECs take up a lot of that time with screen time. I had a conversation recently with a mom and she just told me straight up that she did zero activities growing up and it was fine for her so she's not planning on her kids doing many/any. She said she doesn't want to have to drive them and sit there while they do whatever it is. I don't relate to this but also my kids wouldn't be happy with so much at home time.
I would also honestly worry about college admissions. I went to a private college but a lot of people in our social group went to the highly ranked, cheap public university and seem to assume their kids will easily be able to follow suit. I think admission was a different ballgame 25 years ago, but it doesn't seem likely to get in now with zero ECs.

So we are over scheduling elementary school kids because of parental anxiety about college admissions?

I guess if your idea of "overscheduling" involves your child participating in at least one activity, then yes.
IME if kids do zero activities through elementary and middle school they don't tend to be super involved in meaningful activities in HS (and beyond).

Thats simply not true. I wasn't involved in many at all in my whole childhood, that didn't hamper me at all. I playeed/hung out with friends,spent time with family, day trips/vacation also involved myself with hobbies. Kids without activities are just fine. Sure, some may get into things they shouldn't l, but they are likely to do that regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody explain the philosophy behind having no organized activities or enrichment (music lessons, language lessons, or tutoring) for your child? I'm talking about situations where there is plenty of money to pay for them and the child has requested them. Parents don't work unreasonable hours, so it's not a question of time. They just never get around to signing up for music lessons, soccer teams, art camps, chess clubs, sailing lessons, etc... I know that most people consider the UMC kids of the DMV to be overscheduled. But it doesn't seem any more healthy to do no activities or zero enrichment. These are not free range kids either. They don't have any interest in exploring more than their own street nor would the parents allow that.

Music lessons? Like the kind where you pay a zillion dollars for lessons but getting kid to practice turns into a battle so it's a big money sink?
Language lessons? What kid asks for or enjoys that?
Tutoring? You know some kids are smart and don't need tutors?

Our kids don't do activities because we work full time, and they spend 9-10 hours a day in school+aftercare, and we are all tired at the end of the day. They are learning piano using an app on their ipads. They don't like playing sports. They do art and creative activities constantly at home. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen to them if they don't have sailing lessons.

MCPS and other school systems offer free tutoring even for smart kids, like mine.
Language lessons - mine asks for it.
Music lessons - yes we battle to practice but when we suggest stopping them kid gets upset.

It sounds like it's really about you, no the kids. They might enjoy an art class, for example. You don't learn piano on an app. Funny how screen time is ok but activities are not. Its really you are tired and cannot be bothered.

I find a lot of families whose children do few or zero ECs take up a lot of that time with screen time. I had a conversation recently with a mom and she just told me straight up that she did zero activities growing up and it was fine for her so she's not planning on her kids doing many/any. She said she doesn't want to have to drive them and sit there while they do whatever it is. I don't relate to this but also my kids wouldn't be happy with so much at home time.
I would also honestly worry about college admissions. I went to a private college but a lot of people in our social group went to the highly ranked, cheap public university and seem to assume their kids will easily be able to follow suit. I think admission was a different ballgame 25 years ago, but it doesn't seem likely to get in now with zero ECs.

So we are over scheduling elementary school kids because of parental anxiety about college admissions?

I guess if your idea of "overscheduling" involves your child participating in at least one activity, then yes.
IME if kids do zero activities through elementary and middle school they don't tend to be super involved in meaningful activities in HS (and beyond).

Thats simply not true. I wasn't involved in many at all in my whole childhood, that didn't hamper me at all. I playeed/hung out with friends,spent time with family, day trips/vacation also involved myself with hobbies. Kids without activities are just fine. Sure, some may get into things they shouldn't l, but they are likely to do that regardless.

This is what is highly debatable especially in the modern era when other local kids aren’t always available for free neighborhood play, like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody explain the philosophy behind having no organized activities or enrichment (music lessons, language lessons, or tutoring) for your child? I'm talking about situations where there is plenty of money to pay for them and the child has requested them. Parents don't work unreasonable hours, so it's not a question of time. They just never get around to signing up for music lessons, soccer teams, art camps, chess clubs, sailing lessons, etc... I know that most people consider the UMC kids of the DMV to be overscheduled. But it doesn't seem any more healthy to do no activities or zero enrichment. These are not free range kids either. They don't have any interest in exploring more than their own street nor would the parents allow that.

Music lessons? Like the kind where you pay a zillion dollars for lessons but getting kid to practice turns into a battle so it's a big money sink?
Language lessons? What kid asks for or enjoys that?
Tutoring? You know some kids are smart and don't need tutors?

Our kids don't do activities because we work full time, and they spend 9-10 hours a day in school+aftercare, and we are all tired at the end of the day. They are learning piano using an app on their ipads. They don't like playing sports. They do art and creative activities constantly at home. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen to them if they don't have sailing lessons.

MCPS and other school systems offer free tutoring even for smart kids, like mine.
Language lessons - mine asks for it.
Music lessons - yes we battle to practice but when we suggest stopping them kid gets upset.

It sounds like it's really about you, no the kids. They might enjoy an art class, for example. You don't learn piano on an app. Funny how screen time is ok but activities are not. Its really you are tired and cannot be bothered.

I find a lot of families whose children do few or zero ECs take up a lot of that time with screen time. I had a conversation recently with a mom and she just told me straight up that she did zero activities growing up and it was fine for her so she's not planning on her kids doing many/any. She said she doesn't want to have to drive them and sit there while they do whatever it is. I don't relate to this but also my kids wouldn't be happy with so much at home time.
I would also honestly worry about college admissions. I went to a private college but a lot of people in our social group went to the highly ranked, cheap public university and seem to assume their kids will easily be able to follow suit. I think admission was a different ballgame 25 years ago, but it doesn't seem likely to get in now with zero ECs.

So we are over scheduling elementary school kids because of parental anxiety about college admissions?

I guess if your idea of "overscheduling" involves your child participating in at least one activity, then yes.
IME if kids do zero activities through elementary and middle school they don't tend to be super involved in meaningful activities in HS (and beyond).

Thats simply not true. I wasn't involved in many at all in my whole childhood, that didn't hamper me at all. I playeed/hung out with friends,spent time with family, day trips/vacation also involved myself with hobbies. Kids without activities are just fine. Sure, some may get into things they shouldn't l, but they are likely to do that regardless.

This is what is highly debatable especially in the modern era when other local kids aren’t always available for free neighborhood play, like it or not.

+1

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/737411.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody explain the philosophy behind having no organized activities or enrichment (music lessons, language lessons, or tutoring) for your child? I'm talking about situations where there is plenty of money to pay for them and the child has requested them. Parents don't work unreasonable hours, so it's not a question of time. They just never get around to signing up for music lessons, soccer teams, art camps, chess clubs, sailing lessons, etc... I know that most people consider the UMC kids of the DMV to be overscheduled. But it doesn't seem any more healthy to do no activities or zero enrichment. These are not free range kids either. They don't have any interest in exploring more than their own street nor would the parents allow that.

Music lessons? Like the kind where you pay a zillion dollars for lessons but getting kid to practice turns into a battle so it's a big money sink?
Language lessons? What kid asks for or enjoys that?
Tutoring? You know some kids are smart and don't need tutors?

Our kids don't do activities because we work full time, and they spend 9-10 hours a day in school+aftercare, and we are all tired at the end of the day. They are learning piano using an app on their ipads. They don't like playing sports. They do art and creative activities constantly at home. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen to them if they don't have sailing lessons.

MCPS and other school systems offer free tutoring even for smart kids, like mine.
Language lessons - mine asks for it.
Music lessons - yes we battle to practice but when we suggest stopping them kid gets upset.

It sounds like it's really about you, no the kids. They might enjoy an art class, for example. You don't learn piano on an app. Funny how screen time is ok but activities are not. Its really you are tired and cannot be bothered.

I find a lot of families whose children do few or zero ECs take up a lot of that time with screen time. I had a conversation recently with a mom and she just told me straight up that she did zero activities growing up and it was fine for her so she's not planning on her kids doing many/any. She said she doesn't want to have to drive them and sit there while they do whatever it is. I don't relate to this but also my kids wouldn't be happy with so much at home time.
I would also honestly worry about college admissions. I went to a private college but a lot of people in our social group went to the highly ranked, cheap public university and seem to assume their kids will easily be able to follow suit. I think admission was a different ballgame 25 years ago, but it doesn't seem likely to get in now with zero ECs.

So we are over scheduling elementary school kids because of parental anxiety about college admissions?

I guess if your idea of "overscheduling" involves your child participating in at least one activity, then yes.
IME if kids do zero activities through elementary and middle school they don't tend to be super involved in meaningful activities in HS (and beyond).

Thats simply not true. I wasn't involved in many at all in my whole childhood, that didn't hamper me at all. I playeed/hung out with friends,spent time with family, day trips/vacation also involved myself with hobbies. Kids without activities are just fine. Sure, some may get into things they shouldn't l, but they are likely to do that regardless.

I wish I had them and I can see the difference in mine doing what they love vs me just being home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High school kids do workout videos alone at home?! I've seriously never heard of such a thing. And yes, I find that really odd. I'm not sure why, but I do. I get the sense that this isn't a member of the football team trying to bulk up in the off-season in his backyard with a weight set.

Learning to play piano alone using an app on a device? You don't play an instrument, do you?

I do not play an instrument, and I’m trying to fathom how I’ve been harmed.
My family could not afford music lessons growing up. My brother taught himself to play guitar as an adult, and now he writes songs and plays in a band.

NP. Harmed isn’t the right word. That being said, there are documented, lifelong cognitive benefits to learning an instrument in childhood, including later appreciation and processing of music, memory, attention span and protection against age related neural decline.

The studies you refer to are likely confounded by the fact that wealthy kids with other andvantages are more likely to take music lessons. I managed to get a full academic scholarship to college and a PhD in neuroscience without musical training. But by all means, keep forcing your kid to play that violin in hopes that they get an extra IQ point or two.

No, they are adjusted for SES.

No they aren’t. And a recent meta analysis suggests the effects of musical training on cognition are null. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody explain the philosophy behind having no organized activities or enrichment (music lessons, language lessons, or tutoring) for your child? I'm talking about situations where there is plenty of money to pay for them and the child has requested them. Parents don't work unreasonable hours, so it's not a question of time. They just never get around to signing up for music lessons, soccer teams, art camps, chess clubs, sailing lessons, etc... I know that most people consider the UMC kids of the DMV to be overscheduled. But it doesn't seem any more healthy to do no activities or zero enrichment. These are not free range kids either. They don't have any interest in exploring more than their own street nor would the parents allow that.

Music lessons? Like the kind where you pay a zillion dollars for lessons but getting kid to practice turns into a battle so it's a big money sink?
Language lessons? What kid asks for or enjoys that?
Tutoring? You know some kids are smart and don't need tutors?

Our kids don't do activities because we work full time, and they spend 9-10 hours a day in school+aftercare, and we are all tired at the end of the day. They are learning piano using an app on their ipads. They don't like playing sports. They do art and creative activities constantly at home. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen to them if they don't have sailing lessons.

MCPS and other school systems offer free tutoring even for smart kids, like mine.
Language lessons - mine asks for it.
Music lessons - yes we battle to practice but when we suggest stopping them kid gets upset.

It sounds like it's really about you, no the kids. They might enjoy an art class, for example. You don't learn piano on an app. Funny how screen time is ok but activities are not. Its really you are tired and cannot be bothered.

I find a lot of families whose children do few or zero ECs take up a lot of that time with screen time. I had a conversation recently with a mom and she just told me straight up that she did zero activities growing up and it was fine for her so she's not planning on her kids doing many/any. She said she doesn't want to have to drive them and sit there while they do whatever it is. I don't relate to this but also my kids wouldn't be happy with so much at home time.
I would also honestly worry about college admissions. I went to a private college but a lot of people in our social group went to the highly ranked, cheap public university and seem to assume their kids will easily be able to follow suit. I think admission was a different ballgame 25 years ago, but it doesn't seem likely to get in now with zero ECs.

So we are over scheduling elementary school kids because of parental anxiety about college admissions?

I guess if your idea of "overscheduling" involves your child participating in at least one activity, then yes.
IME if kids do zero activities through elementary and middle school they don't tend to be super involved in meaningful activities in HS (and beyond).

Thats simply not true. I wasn't involved in many at all in my whole childhood, that didn't hamper me at all. I playeed/hung out with friends,spent time with family, day trips/vacation also involved myself with hobbies. Kids without activities are just fine. Sure, some may get into things they shouldn't l, but they are likely to do that regardless.

I wish I had them and I can see the difference in mine doing what they love vs me just being home.

Ok maybe I shouldn't have worded it as a blanket statement, but there are kids without activities or minimal that are ok. I guess it just depends

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High school kids do workout videos alone at home?! I've seriously never heard of such a thing. And yes, I find that really odd. I'm not sure why, but I do. I get the sense that this isn't a member of the football team trying to bulk up in the off-season in his backyard with a weight set.

Learning to play piano alone using an app on a device? You don't play an instrument, do you?

I do not play an instrument, and I’m trying to fathom how I’ve been harmed.
My family could not afford music lessons growing up. My brother taught himself to play guitar as an adult, and now he writes songs and plays in a band.

NP. Harmed isn’t the right word. That being said, there are documented, lifelong cognitive benefits to learning an instrument in childhood, including later appreciation and processing of music, memory, attention span and protection against age related neural decline.

The studies you refer to are likely confounded by the fact that wealthy kids with other andvantages are more likely to take music lessons. I managed to get a full academic scholarship to college and a PhD in neuroscience without musical training. But by all means, keep forcing your kid to play that violin in hopes that they get an extra IQ point or two.

No, they are adjusted for SES.

No they aren’t. And a recent meta analysis suggests the effects of musical training on cognition are null. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01060-2

Two years later, another meta analysis.

“Learning to play an instrument has a positive impact on cognitive skills and academic achievement.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X22000057