College Students Think They're Way Too Special

The public has been worried about young people for some time now. Blaming parents is nothing new, either. Even parents blame parents. Six in 10 parents rate their generation as "fair" or "poor"

in raising children. For more information click

http://www.publicagenda.org/research/research_reports_details.cfm?list=33.

The public has been worried about young people for some time now. Blaming parents is nothing new, either. Even parents blame parents. Six in 10 parents rate their generation as "fair" or "poor"

in raising children. For more information click

http://www.publicagenda.org/research/research_reports_details.cfm?list=33.

I've noticed American society's trend of wanting to constantly bolster its young in this way, telling them they do well even when they don't, not keeping score in games, and basically avoiding anything that might hurt a child's feelings. I'm generally opposed to this way of interacting with people of any age. Of course it's good to be considerate, but it's also good to be honest and for people to learn to cope with the strains in life. They need to learn to discipline their emotions, not expect everyone else to treat them in a way so that they don't have to.

I haven't, however, considered the more complex psychological ramifications of this sort of parenting on into college-aged years. I wonder if that sort of "emotional pandering" (or "EP," and yes, I made that term up) has led to the preponderance of "political correctness." I also wonder what will happen when these college students go out into the "real world." Will they perpetuate the EP, or will they get rudely smacked in the face by interacting with those who could care less about their feelings? If EP is greatly dominant in this generation, how might it affect government, the economy, the military, world relations, etc. in the years to come?

Getting back to the parenting issue, I think EP is also evident in the trend of parents wanting to be their child's best friend, rather than his/her parent - someone who teaches, protects and loves them. I think this was well put by Joe J. Christensen in his article "Rearing Children in a Polluted Environment:"

This doesn't mean it's bad to be your child's friend or for your child to like you, of course. The irony of it is that the parents who seem "pathologically concerned" in this way don't seem to get for what they're looking. Aren't children of EP parents the ones who are most prone to talk back, throw fits, and disobey in general? The result of the EP is less respect, not more friendship.

What's the solution, then? I think it might be best described in this verse from the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 121:41-44):

Of course, we aren't talking about the priesthood here; we're talking about parenting, but I think the principles are the same.

A now a word from your friendly Neighborhood Coach:

“O.K., kick the ball Jonnie, Oops you missed; Good job! It’s O.K. Try again… Oh! Almost. One more time… there you go. Now let Freddy have a turn. Go Freddy!! Whoa, that grass is slippery isn’t it? Try once more. Good kick. Good kick. Randy’s turn. Yay Randy!! Go get your shoe and try again… Good job!!! Yaaaay!!!.... “

The problem we're talking about is unrealistic expectations. Just like porn gives young men unrealistic expectations about women and sex, constantly telling kids they're special makes them believe it.

The world is a hard place, and it's competitive. Soccer games without keeping score might seem nice but it does the kids a disservice by making them think that hard work and competition are irrelevant, and that having fun or how you play the game is the object.

After four years at West Point, constantly being told that the Army was the greatest organization in the world, that we cadets were special, and that soldiers were the greatest people I'd ever have the privilege to lead, I was inevitably let down on all fronts. The top 10% of officers chosen to teach and lead us at West Point were not representative of the average and "bottom 10%" officers I worked under and with in the Army. The Army, like every organization, was not perfect. And a large number of soldiers do stupid things, are in for the wrong reasons, and are not all a privilege to lead.

On balance, the Army's a good organization, and its officers and soldiers are true blue Americans and great folks. But I had grown to expect so much more that I was disappointed (and I had even spent 2 years as an enlisted soldier)!

The Academy's way of developing its future officers is like porn- you think this thing you're looking forward to is awesome and devoid of negative aspects. In reality, it is a great thing but it has its flaws. Some people quickly accept these flaws and do well in Army careers (or never buy the BS to begin with and thus have realistic expectations going into it). Alas, I was not one of those people.

My unmet expectations were the main factor in my leaving the Army at the first possible opportunity for the business world, a place I believe in and like, but I knew to have many flaws as well.

I'm too idealistic. You other officers did this expectation game have anything to do with your decision to stay in or get out?

As someone who teaches college classes, I think the biggest consequence of this change in attitudes is not simply that kids are annoying (though they often are), but that they tend to understand themselves as paying customers entitled to a service. Specifically, they understand themselves to be paying for a degree, and my job is to make sure they get one; anything I do that hinders this (like, say, giving them a low grade for doing crappy work) is taking something from them that they're entitled to. I don't know how many times I've heard something like "But i really need to do well in this class because I'm going to law school." To which I want to respond (but don't): "If you can't do well in a freshman-level class without me holding your hand the entire time, then you're sure as hell not going to law school."

Now, obviously there is something of a contractual relationship in this: I am paid to present them with information in a coherent, intelligible way, and to relate what they learn to the larger world. I am a liasion between them and the information. But this process also requires that we evaluate the extent to which they are working to retain and process this information for themselves, and how well the evaluation goes is completely up to them. The students, however, often do not see it this way, and it stands to reason that part of the explanation for this is a change in their attitudes toward themselves, and a corresponding revision of their notion of what they deserve.

Before we launch into a tirade about how back in the day “we used to have to walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways” we should considered the validity of this test.

How accurate can a paper test of character be? Also, is “narcissistic” personality really on the rise, or is there some other more accurate perspective on this data?

Personally, I’d answer the first three questions quoted in the article the same way as the rest of the students.

"If I ruled the world, it would be a better place,"

IF given a position of political influence I would try to wield my power in the most humanitarian way possible. Who wouldn’t? Does anyone on the forum loath humanity so much that try to make things worse? I think this is a very vague and poor hypothetical, let alone a judge of characteristic. I’m sure both Hitler and Gandhi thought they were making the world a better place.

"I think I am a special person"

Special has a very broad definition. It means “of distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual” and also means “extraordinary; exceptional, as in amount or degree; especial”. I don’t consider myself “extraordinary” but I do acknowledge my individuality. In my humble opinion, special has become the new slightly less stigmatized way of saying “different”, and most people from the younger generation with a strong sense of self would, under these circumstances, label themselves as “special”.

"I can live my life any way I want to."

Is it “narcissistic” not to let others govern the way you live your life? As long as you’re not hurting anyone in the process I think everyone should pursue what they want. I think it’s a shame and waste to live your whole life seeking validation, especially if requires doing something you hate. How many homosexuals have had to represses desires and live secrete lives to live up to family and social expectation?

I think we should be a little more skeptical about such generalized social claims.