Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think education was much, much better.

This.
I can scarcely believe what passes for a curriculum in the schools today.

And as a result, despite colleges being *harder to get into* the quality of education at universities has plummeted. Even at the Ivy institutions compared to what they used to offer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…succeed in life? Not being snarky, I’m just trying to understand. When I was young, children just watched TV and had no academic “enrichment” outside of perhaps an instrument and a sport. Certainly no Kumon or academic acceleration. They went on to have successful careers and great lives. Were standards lower? Are children going to be a lot smarter because of screen time limits?

I had one hour a week for TV. But there were these things called Libraries,! And, they had something called Books! It was so strange because there were lots of letters of the alphabet strung together to made words. All these words made paragraphs and after so many paragraphs then there were Chapters,!!!

I got so good figuring out how to use Libraries and how to do something called "Checking out books," that I often read a book every day and these were books that were called biographies, autobiographies, fiction, nonfiction.

You are an idiot!

Yet after supposedly reading all of those books you write like someone with a 5th grade education. Congratulations?? I'm sure we will all believe whatever pathetic excuse you make for your sad writing.

Anonymous wrote:We had this years ago. Maybe not Kumon but tutors, parents working with us. You just had bad parents. We weren't allowed much tv.

How many years ago? Five? Ten? Because it really wasn't a thing 20, 30, 40 years ago. If your parents were doing that then, you were either dumb or had bad parents.

Anonymous wrote:…succeed in life? Not being snarky, I’m just trying to understand. When I was young, children just watched TV and had no academic “enrichment” outside of perhaps an instrument and a sport. Certainly no Kumon or academic acceleration. They went on to have successful careers and great lives. Were standards lower? Are children going to be a lot smarter because of screen time limits?

I had one hour a week for TV. But there were these things called Libraries,! And, they had something called Books! It was so strange because there were lots of letters of the alphabet strung together to made words. All these words made paragraphs and after so many paragraphs then there were Chapters,!!!

I got so good figuring out how to use Libraries and how to do something called "Checking out books," that I often read a book every day and these were books that were called biographies, autobiographies, fiction, nonfiction.

You are an idiot!

It wasn't as competitive.

I think it was a different time. Education was not available to everyone and in every part of the world. Less competition for the privileged people at that time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's so weird that people on DCUM think that their MC childhood was the only version of normal, and that their UMC children's childhood is currently the only version of normal.

UMC kids in places like Upper Northwest and Bethesda and McLean had the same kind of lives your kids do now, with piano lessons, and soccer, and cub scouts, and tutoring and swim team. If you didn't have that as a child growing up, it's likely because you didn't grow up UMC.

But they didn’t have iPhones and you tube and snap chat, etc etc.

Right but that fact hardly supports the idea that everyone had unlimited screen time then and every one has screen time limits now.

I think kids didn't need screen time limits like kids do today. I was born in 84, we had cable TV, Nintendo and later on in late middle school, the internet. The two major differences imo are that we had freedom and were encouraged and able to hang out with friends in person. And the other is that even with our tech for back in the day, we didn't want to spend all our time in front of a screen. Seemingly that's all kids want to do now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's so weird that people on DCUM think that their MC childhood was the only version of normal, and that their UMC children's childhood is currently the only version of normal.

UMC kids in places like Upper Northwest and Bethesda and McLean had the same kind of lives your kids do now, with piano lessons, and soccer, and cub scouts, and tutoring and swim team. If you didn't have that as a child growing up, it's likely because you didn't grow up UMC.

But they didn’t have iPhones and you tube and snap chat, etc etc.

Right but that fact hardly supports the idea that everyone had unlimited screen time then and every one has screen time limits now.

Anonymous wrote:Schools at all levels wanted “well rounded” applicants, which led to a more balanced life. Now you have to be pointy, which means a panic to discover your child’s “thing” and then a race to specialize and stand out

Not true.

What happened is the population grew and education got better, and women and non white people were more accepted but the people who want to be in the "top 5000" now face more competition.

And late stage capitalism is stealing all the wealth for a small collection of billionaires and their support staff.

Anonymous wrote:We had 2 TVs - one in the living room, one in my parents room. We got a third when we were in late middle school/high school.

There wasn’t a lot on, there wasn’t streaming to mindlessly watch. My brothers wanted to play video games, my parents wanted to watch their shows in the evening. It wasn’t a TV per person or a phone/iPad with unlimited access.

I didn’t push back when my parents told me to go outside, upstairs, read a book, do my homework.

Education was generally better. One thing that really stands out to me is the common core math. When I was in 8th grade, I didn’t understand algebra the way I was being taught, so my dad taught me again at home. That’s not allowed now because kids have to do things the way the school is teaching or it’s wrong, even if it’s the correct outcome. Learning didn’t used to be so standardized and mindless.

I had hobbies that could be done around the house. Lots of art, did puzzles, reading, helping cook dinner and bake. I didn’t need a rigid extra curricular calendar to be well rounded.

This is nonsense.
It amazes me that your argument for "common core bad" was that the way that you were taught previously was so bad that you needed a tutor to teach you .

Anyway, algebra is much, much harder than the little techniques being taught, which really only apply in K-8, not algebra.

And finally, those techniques found in Eureka as the like aren't "common core". Common core says nothing about techniques.

Schools at all levels wanted “well rounded” applicants, which led to a more balanced life. Now you have to be pointy, which means a panic to discover your child’s “thing” and then a race to specialize and stand out

Anonymous wrote:OP, where were you in the 80s and 90s? Weren't you in school like the rest of us? We were fine, we went to school, did our homework, read for school AND for fun, and watched a lot of TV. Many of us then went to college, and are living regular lives now. Your premise is strange.

No, I get what the OP is saying. They are asking how the generation of kids who were largely unsupervised for much of their lives turned out fine, contrasting those outcomes with the current culture of blaming poor parenting and lack of parental engagement with education on poor student outcomes.

I was one of those 70s kids who was a good student and watched a ton of TV. All of my siblings did too. However, although we weren't wealthy, my parents took us to museums, historical landmarks, and live theater. We also traveled (by car, always), and those experiences were impactful.

I agree with the PP who said that standards were lower. I still am not convinced that was a bad thing. I was an avid reader, old for my grade, and had an easy time in school from day one. In fact, I loved school. My brother was the opposite, yet it seemed that there was more room back then for late bloomers to come into their own without having their confidence and interest in learning squelched from a young age.

Schools and teachers were different then too. It wasn't just discipline. When my mother, a teacher, wanted to go back to work after being home while her kids were younger, she started as a sub. We used to have family celebrations when she would get "the call" because she wanted to be back in the classroom and the calls weren't all that frequent. Teachers were in the classrooms more, not absent or pulled out for training.

I also think kids were different. For many reasons, our lives were more independent beginning at a young age. Because we had more control over our activities and spent more time without adult supervision or judgment, I think we developed skills and qualities, like self-reliance, that made success more likely. I just read this study earlier today and think this viewpoint has merit. With more freedom and opportunity for independence, kids tended to be happier overall, which impacted their attitudes toward school.

https://cdn2.psychologytoday.com/assets/2023-02/Children's%20Independence%20IN%20PRESS%20.pdf

Anonymous wrote:I think it's so weird that people on DCUM think that their MC childhood was the only version of normal, and that their UMC children's childhood is currently the only version of normal.

UMC kids in places like Upper Northwest and Bethesda and McLean had the same kind of lives your kids do now, with piano lessons, and soccer, and cub scouts, and tutoring and swim team. If you didn't have that as a child growing up, it's likely because you didn't grow up UMC.

But they didn’t have iPhones and you tube and snap chat, etc etc.

We had 2 TVs - one in the living room, one in my parents room. We got a third when we were in late middle school/high school.

There wasn’t a lot on, there wasn’t streaming to mindlessly watch. My brothers wanted to play video games, my parents wanted to watch their shows in the evening. It wasn’t a TV per person or a phone/iPad with unlimited access.

I didn’t push back when my parents told me to go outside, upstairs, read a book, do my homework.

Education was generally better. One thing that really stands out to me is the common core math. When I was in 8th grade, I didn’t understand algebra the way I was being taught, so my dad taught me again at home. That’s not allowed now because kids have to do things the way the school is teaching or it’s wrong, even if it’s the correct outcome. Learning didn’t used to be so standardized and mindless.

I had hobbies that could be done around the house. Lots of art, did puzzles, reading, helping cook dinner and bake. I didn’t need a rigid extra curricular calendar to be well rounded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…succeed in life? Not being snarky, I’m just trying to understand. When I was young, children just watched TV and had no academic “enrichment” outside of perhaps an instrument and a sport. Certainly no Kumon or academic acceleration. They went on to have successful careers and great lives. Were standards lower? Are children going to be a lot smarter because of screen time limits?

Most of them didn’t succeed in life. Look around. Plenty of bums everywhere— in the city, in rural areas, even elected to Congress. All idiots. It’s why immigrants are in so many important positions in the US. The locals can’t handle the work that’s necessary.

OK this is the point of OP's post. Yes, we Americans are not worthy, we have been royally gifted by immigrant's values, smarts, and work ethic. We were a mess before you.