On our Generations and Turnings blog, we posted a story yesterday about how colleges are offering programs for "empty nester" parents.

We examined the Millennials as they prepared for college in detail in the May 2002 issue of the Millennial Generation Monitor newsletter. Here's what we wrote:

-----------------------------------------------

Two Springs ago, a girl described by the New York Times as a ?giggly, hurried 19-year-old caught up in her busy, overachieving life??another ?Uber-kid? of ?Generation Stress??set herself ablaze in her dorm room at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Until her suicide, her parents knew nothing of her inner anguish. Furious that the university never alerted them that a school psychiatrist had considered hospitalizing her, they have sued M.I.T. in a case that has drawn national media attention and elicited alarm among the nation?s college administrators.

The Shin case illustrates the dilemma have already faced?or will soon face?as they encounter members of the first-wave of the Millennial Generation (and their ever-present parents). Any business or other entity that will soon be recruiting, hiring, or serving this new crop of young adults would do well to pay attention to what?s starting to happen on the nation?s campuses.

In mounting a vigorous defense, M.I.T.?s legal team is citing the Family Emergency Privacy Act of 1974. Also called the Buckley Amendment, the legislation was the Congressional response to the changing campus atmosphere of the late 1960s and early ?70s, as young Boomers demanded?and a beleaguered older generation accepted?that colleges should not act in loco parentis. In the years since, the Buckley Amendment has required that, except in the direst of emergencies or unless a student signed an waiver, each student?s grades, medical, psychiatric and disciplinary records would be kept private even from the student?s own parents.

As Boomers passed through adolescence, that felt like the right thing to do. As Gen Xers came along, no one outside the confines of academe paid much attention. But now that the Boomers? own children are entering college, the issue has flipped. Enter what Wake Forest Dean Mary Girardy describes as ?helicopter parents??always hovering, ultraprotective, unwilling to let go, and enlisting what she calls ?the team? (parent, physician, lawyer, other counselors) to assert a variety of special needs and interests.

Colleges also are learning, sometimes the hard way, that Millennials command a lot of media attention. The media are casting the same spotlight on Millennial collegians that they did upon babies and tykes in the mid-?80s, elementary schoolers in the early ?90s, and high schoolers in the late ?90s?adding to the buzz, and to everyone?s pressure to perform.

The admissions process is far more pressured, professionalized, and controversial, than ever before. ?It starts with the fact that it?s now harder to get into Harvard and to our competitors,? says Harvard Dean Thomas Dingman, ?You have high school juniors feeling from the get-go that they can?t make mistakes.?

Another lesson colleges are with Millennials is that these kids continue to engage in what we call ?co-purchasing? behavior. Just as teens and parents jointly participate in the purchase of son?s clothes, daughter?s car (or mom?s computer), so too are parents and high schoolers jointly making college decisions. To accommodate this trend, college brochures show more adults than before, and include language about ?life plans,? medical support services, and programs for ?special needs? students.

With eyes on the annual US News & World Report ?yield? rankings, colleges are pushing more applicants to make binding commitments at the start of senior year. And with eyes on their ?average SAT? rankings, many private colleges are offering tuition cash-back discounts (alias, ?scholarships?) to students with scores above a certain level. Despite all the media chatter about the arbitrariness of SAT scores, surveys confirm that college admissions officials rely more than ever on SAT scores as a way of distinguishing among applicants whose resumes are broad and deep, whose grades can be hard to interpret, and whose application essays are carefully, even professionally, crafted.

By the time those thick (or thin) acceptance (or rejection) letters arrive, many Millennial teens feel more than a little burned out. Meanwhile, their Boomer parents feel pangs of pending separation. Never before in the history of polling have teens and parents gotten along so well, a fact that is perceptibly transforming the notion of 18-year-olds packing up and leaving home.

On freshman arrival day, college presidents give moms and dads the usual warm speeches about ?up to now it?s been your turn, now it?s our turn,? but often with a new edge. Some college registrars are asking parents and students to sign a ?relationship covenant,? forcing them to read a document that establishes what is and is not expected of all parties.

Afterwards, many colleges try to make it easier on parents by publishing newsletters, providing special inns or conference centers where visiting parents can share in the campus experience, and by crafting and publicizing special weekend occasions at which parents are welcome.

Meanwhile, colleges are starting to clamp down on student behavior. Coed visitation rules?rules that were liberalized into nonexistence in the Boomer youth years?are making a comeback. Colleges are using special stamps and bracelets, and police presence, to enforce alcohol age laws. Rowdy students at or after athletic games are facing new crackdowns, as is Internet ?cheating? (thanks to new teacher friendly catch-acheater web programs). Student-on-student violence is decreasing. A new, less rambunctious style of Greek life may be emerging.

Everywhere Millennials go?from babyhood to childhood to adolescence and now to post-adolescence-they expect to be kept safe, and college is no exception. Dormitories have tighter-than-ever security (in the Boomer days, they often had none), with many campuses converting to hotel-style keycards. The ventilation of venerable old dorms has come under new question. Some parents are buying houses near campuses, providing places for their kids to live for four years, and where parents will retain control.

Administrators also report that freshmen are dressing more conservatively (not more preppy, just less revealingly) than in past years. And there's a new resistance to group bathrooms, or even to having roommates. One college survey found that three-quarters of incoming freshmen have never shared a room with anyone. That fact, combined with all the space consuming tech gear students bring with them, makes the old classic dorm concept of two- (or three) to-a-room feel archaic.

The most popular dorms are those featuring apartment-style clustering, with solo bedrooms wrapped around common areas. Off-campus housing-especially the large new "edge campus" apartment complexes springing up around major state universities-can give students more space and personal privacy, but offers less technology (broadband and cable hookups), and less sense of campus participation.

Like moms and dads, Millennial collegians are having a harder time letting go of their former lives, and they're using technology to hold on to the past. During breaks, typically around 10 or 11 AM, students walk from class to class while chatting intently on cell phones, often with old high school friends hundreds of miles away who have breaks at the same time. After class, they go on-line to share notes with friends and family.

Today's students expect access to services-"food," "chill zones," even counseling-on a 24/7 basis. They are using mental health services more, less as a matter of personal crisis than as a natural and normal part of life.

If anything goes wrong, those "helicopter parents" buzz off emails to professors, deans, even college presidents. The most vocal are parents of "special needs" children (whose sometimes lengthy lists of diagnoses are not always easy for colleges to handle). Also throwing a lot of weight around are parents of "full freight" students, who feel that paying full tuition should bring entitlement to "upgrades" of dorms, classes, access to activities, and more.

Though race and gender issues are on the back burner, money is a hot topic. Some collegians have loads of money, but a great many don't. Students tend to dress alike, hiding whether they're rich or not.

The plight of men during their first year on campus has become a major concern. On most campuses, they're a distinct minority-55 percent of all college freshmen are now girls-and despite what aging women's studies professors say, they're used to being dominated by females in class and extracurriculars. They're too young to date anyone other than freshmen women, whom the upper-class men try to date, so they often feel left out of the social life. Some colleges have established special programs to deal with the problem, including maleonly dorms and vigorous (even paramilitary) off-campus activities.

Millennial students are also transforming campus life by arriving with an enormous amount of stress. No matter how burnt out they may have felt as high school seniors, the generational competition factory starts up again in college. Now, the focus is on taking the right courses, using winter or summer breaks well to build resumes, getting into a good grad school, finding the right career choices, finding and keeping relationships, achieving a more mature bond with parents, and more. Huge numbers of students carry daytimers-and get panicky when they lose them. Professors are becoming concerned that the Millennial focus on keeping commitments may be inhibiting many of them from thinking about deeper things.

Last year, in The Atlantic Monthly, David Brooks halfpraised and half-chided them as "Organization Kids." On the whole, college admissions officers, registrars, deans, and professors find them a refreshing and energizing change. (They could do without all the parents, though.)

Other institutions take note. Millennial young adults, and their Boomer parents, are coming your way. Get ready.

Well, I am not sure how old the millennials actually are, but the college students in our family are ages 23, 20 and 18. (They are all living in the same college town as they are all going to the same college.) There is a gulf between 18 and the 20's. The 20's say 18 is "square," he doesn't drink and his idea of fun is going to movies with some old band-buddy friends from high school who are going to same college. They are afraid that he "judges" their life styles and periodically try to "corrupt" him and his friends by inviting them to their parties. 18 says their parties are "okay" but he still likes his movies and computer games. 18 is a computer hound, loves those games, and so far is a straight A student. Says he may go into army after college because feels it is his duty. He says he is going to major in computers or engineering. But I think he will end up in law.

20, like that Bush girl, was fined for drinking beer at a frat party. Her father went up to her college town to go before the court with her. She says she was "totally humiliated" because she was the only one with a dad there. She had to "serve time" picking up trash for a bunch of days. It was a real eye-opener for her as she got a chance to rub shoulders with young people from very poor backgrounds who were serving their time for a variety of petty offenses. (They referred to her as "the substance abuser," as in "let the substance abuser pick up the road kill"). She still drinks, but more carefully. In high school she hung out with the yacht crowd and still has a weakness for yachts. She is presently a waitress, and a business major with dreams of becoming a republican of the easy street variety. She will definitely become a lawyer.

23 has had a more rough and tumble college career. From the very start she was our 7-11 girl. All her friends were the local riff raff, bad boys and outsiders. Their idea of fun was "hanging". She went to work for Target at age 16 and is still with them, to the point where now she is "management material." She says she loves the "Target family." However, she is an art history major and plans to spend year after graduates in Italy. She sees no conflict in her two careers. In her heart she is a social worker and the only one of her high school crowd to go to college.

When they were children I was learning hypnosis and one day told them I would hypnotize them to be able to have anything they wanted. 23 asked to "have more friends", 20 asked to "be able to do back-flips," and 18 asked to "make good grades." The hypnosis session occurred when they were ages 11, 8 and 6. In my opinion, they asked for what they already had and their requests were an artifact of their life script (trance).

I am sure that 18 is a millie. 20 seems to want to be an Xer but keeps getting whacked by an environment that is trying to get her to straighten up and fly right. 23 is a free spirit, not rigid enough to be an idealist, but somehow not cynical enough to be an Xer.

The article S'n'H post jibes fairly well with one of the major failings (as I see it) of Millenials as a generation. At work, I am just starting to see discernably Millie interns (class of '00, will be college juniors this fall). Their main distingushing feature is what appears to me to be a near-complete inability to handle autonomy. They tend to expect clear, detailed instructions (granted, that's a feature of an internship; still, the usual expectation is a certain amount of self-reliance one the framework of the assignment is laid out), and a constant stream of 'good job, keep at it Jeff' - type banal positive reinforcement. God forbid you try to criticize one of them!
Of course, WARNING! WARNING! BOOMER-BASHING AHEAD! the way the article describes it, I see a shared problem with both Millenial young adults and their Boomer parents. The one has never let the other experience any kind of meaningful autonomy, and I'm not surprised that those skills have atrophied. Seriously, where do the parents of a 19-year-old (an adult by any standard) get the idea they have any right to their kid's medical (much less psychiatric!) records? When do the apron strings let loose? Argh.

As a final thought, I wonder if this kind of stunted development was evident in the young adulthood of the GI gen.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Their main distingushing feature is what appears to me to be a near-complete inability to handle autonomy. They tend to expect clear, detailed instructions

Well, it's not like they actually teach us useful, job-specific info in school anymore. Maybe for keyboarding, but that's it. Maybe it would help if you printed up the company policies in a mini-book or a notebook, or something along those lines, so they wouldn't have to ask for help most of the time.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

WARNING! WARNING! BOOMER-BASHING AHEAD!

Yay! My favorite! My '61 Gen X mom and I have discussed the problems with Boomers plenty of times! But, of course, I never bash Boomers in front of Boomers; like my '57 Dad for example.

Honestly, the Boomer-Bashing is definitely one of the pluses (sic?) of Gen X.

Quote:
"Seriously, where do the parents of a 19-year-old (an adult by any standard) get the idea they have any right to their kid's medical (much less psychiatric!) records? When do the apron strings let loose? Argh."
____________________________
Wow, you should have been raised in the 50's. Why do you think boomers left home in droves, because they were suffocating. When I was in 10th grade I had to write a paper on Hemmingway but the only book I was allowed to check out of the library was Old Man and the Sea. The others were considered too risqu? for the library. I won't even try to discuss what dorm life was like.

Today it is Katie-bar-the-door. Freedom still reigns, although it is beginning to change. What I see in Millie's is deference to their group of friends, and a desire to please adults. The former reminds me of Xers, the latter I haven't seen since the Silents.

As for students needing direction, I work only with graduate students so I have not seen many Millies, but these last 20 years have been a nightmare re: students needing "directions". How many pages, how many citations, what format, do you want topic headings, what questions do you want answered. ANd then..............."but I did every thing you said!!!"

I think that this is likely a natural part of their life cycle. This is clear proof of just how favored Millies are. Even though they are now filling colleges, the parents want to prevent their children from growing up too fast. Perhaps, Millies are protected even more than the GIs, but remember that even the last wave GIs, who were smothered, turned out to be very powerful civics.

Overprotection doesn't matter much in distinguishing Heroes from Artists. Rather, it is whether or not the cohort age group has experienced a coming of age trial. If the Millies do not experience a trial, then they will become an Artist generation, with strong Civic endowments. That's what happened to the Progressive Generation.

It is very unlikely that we will experience another Civil War type Crisis because the ages of each generation are aligned with each other. During the Civil War 4T, The Prophets were WELL into elderhood, while the Nomads were still in young adulthood, leaving the Heroes-To-Be in childhood. Today, however, Boomers are just now beginning to dabble into elderhood, Xers had already made the transition into midlife, and Millies are now entering young adulthood.

With the ages of the generations as young as they are entering 4T, I doubt that we are going to immediately be pushed into total war. While most Americans would agree with "military action" against Iraq, I seriously doubt that they would, at this point, agree with a total war requiring true sacrifice. That is most likely to happen as the last wave Millies enters its mid to late teens. The most likely time for a major 4T era war is sometime between 2012 and 2020.

As for how it is changing, my college this fall is suddenly advocating community, and community service. My college is changing from a commuter campus to a more residential one.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Their main distingushing feature is what appears to me to be a near-complete inability to handle autonomy. They tend to expect clear, detailed instructions

Well, it's not like they actually teach us useful, job-specific info in school anymore. Maybe for keyboarding, but that's it. Maybe it would help if you printed up the company policies in a mini-book or a notebook, or something along those lines, so they wouldn't have to ask for help most of the time.

I rest my case. It's not necessarily not knowing how to do the job, but in taking the initiative to learn how to do the job. Waiting for someone to hand you a policy manual, notebook, or other sheet of instructions is not autonomy.

And Alex, what ever gave you the idea I learned anything job-specific in school? I learned my work skills the old fashioned way -- by observing knowledgeable folks at work, my bosses, and their supervisors, and doing as they did. Believe it or not, some of the most valuable skills (pertaining to my current profession) were learned during my 3.5 years time as a hot-tar roofer.

Originally Posted by R. Gregory '67

What struck me while reading the article was how much the Millies are starting to look like an adaptive, and not a civic, generation. The big red flag is the overdependence on emerging technologies, such as cell phones, pagers, and email, and a total inability to cope without those things.

Most people don't have pagers anymore, for one. They are almost obsolete, with people opting for cell phones instead, where the newer models usually have some sort of message system, or at least a caller ID. Millies certainly prefer to have cell phones for convenience, but they can do fine without them. It's less convenient, but still possible. I get by without one. E-Mail is another bonus, but people still know how to just call each other on their home phones. Sometimes people still just go to your house to talk instead of calling. That's what happens at my house, sometimes. People visit instead of calling (when they do call, its to ask to visit). So we are definitely not overdependent on technology.

Originally Posted by R. Gregory '67

The other big red flag is all the psychotherapy and counseling. (Warning: More Boomer bashing ahead!) Narcissistic Boomers in the 1970s started all the psychotherapy and "support group" movements for themselves, and now it looks like they are forcing them on Millies in high school and college.

You will see some of that (especially in suburban areas] but the vast majority of Millies don't have their own personal psychologists or anything. Most aren't even on Ritalin.

Originally Posted by madscientist

Today, however, Boomers are just now beginning to dabble into elderhood, Xers had already made the transition into midlife, and Millies are now entering young adulthood.

Ummm...according to the definition for Howe and Strauss' "midlife" phase, midlife begins at age 42. We aren't in midlife yet even if you use the S&H early beginning for the generation. That's the age the 1960 cohorts are turning right now. According to S&H's dates for the 13th Generation, the dates that have us beginning at 1961, the generation won't enter midlife until next year. It will be January 1, 2003, if you want it exactly on the forty-second birthday of the first 13er. However, 1961-1963 cohorts have never seemed like Xers to me, and they're less than ten years apart (1979 cohorts feel MUCH more identifiable), so if we could use the old definition we wouldn't enter midlife until 2007. If you start at 1964, which many have argued is definite X, that would take until 2006 for Xers to enter "midlife".

(Looking at Generations some more)

"Elderhood" begins at age 63, so the Boomers will be safe from elderhood until 2006. Postelderhood begins at 84, where the Silents won't be vanishing into until ... let's see (does the math)

2009

Originally Posted by voltronx

Originally Posted by madscientist

Today, however, Boomers are just now beginning to dabble into elderhood, Xers had already made the transition into midlife, and Millies are now entering young adulthood.

Ummm...according to the definition for Howe and Strauss' "midlife" phase, midlife begins at age 42. We aren't in midlife yet even if you use the S&H early beginning for the generation. That's the age the 1960 cohorts are turning right now. According to S&H's dates for the 13th Generation, the dates that have us beginning at 1961, the generation won't enter midlife until next year. It will be January 1, 2003, if you want it exactly on the forty-second birthday of the first 13er. However, 1961-1963 cohorts have never seemed like Xers to me, and they're less than ten years apart (1979 cohorts feel MUCH more identifiable), so if we could use the old definition we wouldn't enter midlife until 2007. If you start at 1964, which many have argued is definite X, that would take until 2006 for Xers to enter "midlife".

(Looking at Generations some more)

"Elderhood" begins at age 63, so the Boomers will be safe from elderhood until 2006. Postelderhood begins at 84, where the Silents won't be vanishing into until ... let's see (does the math)

2009

If you use graduating class, here's what you get; I am not counting the small number of those held back; I am instead using the people who have been in the same class:

Millies (first born Summer 1981) enter Rising Adulthood (age 22) in the Summer of 2003.

Xers (first born Summer 1960) enter Midlife (age 42) in the Summer of 2002.

Boomers (first born Summer 1942) enter Elderhood (age 63) in the Summer of 2005.

Silents (first born Summer 1924) enter Post-Elderhood (age 84) in the Summer of 2008.

So, 50% of the Generations are entering their next life-phases in Summer 2003, while a majority (75%) is not reached until the Summer of 2005.

hmm... according to www.lifecourse.com S&H seem to say that each new stage of life begins everey 21 years so we get the following:

the Silent generation (which everyone seems to agree begins in 1925) won't hit 84 (the post-elderhood marker) until the year 2009; it is worth noting that the Silents were the generation which seemed to maintain their 4T role the least - and that is because even the oldest of them are still a ways away from elderhood!

using a 1943 start for the Boom, they hit elderhood (63) in the year 2006; and even though I disagree with that (instead saying late 1944 or so) this doesn't change things much; they enter elderhood in late 2007 so let's say 2007 here

if Generation X starts in 1961 they enter midlife (42) in 2003; it is worth noting here that the early Xrs have been more likely to take on 4T roles (and the fact that a 1961 cohort is already 40 or 41 is probably why)

using a late 1981 or 1982 Millie start (as S&H do) would have them enter young adulthood (21) right around now; however I feel that the late Xrs and early Millies are more likely to have their generational fate shaped by the onset of the 4T than vice versa

it seems here that the earliest Xrs are pushing a 4T to an earlier start but the Silents are pushing it later; this might indicate a 4T youth culture starting soon but the political issues remaining 3T for a while; and with even 1986 cohorts entering young adulthood in 2007 a Civil War anomaly could easily repeat itself with the line ultimately being drawn somewhere in the mid-80s (those who reached young adulthood by the 4T would become Nomadic; those who hadn't could become Civic/Adaptives) but the 4T itself still seems a few years away

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

I don't think that school has ever helped anyone prepare for a job. Usually you just figure it out as you go along.

It does seem like there are more kids in "therapy" these days than there used to be. 30 years ago, hyper kids didn't get put on Ritalin ... they just got kicked out of school.

XoE

That's so true. When I was in school, kids who were hyperactive were labeled "bad students" or just "bad." They were always being sent to the principal's office.
I remember one boy in my second-grade class who just could NOT sit still. He was always interrupting class and contantly jumping out of his seat. The other kids made fun of him. He was left back that year. I'm sure he was never put on Ritalin. I wonder what ever happened to him, ,or if he ever got through school.

These days, kids get labeled ADHD just for acting like normal kids sometimes.
We've gone from one extreme to the other.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

These days, kids get labeled ADHD just for acting like normal kids sometimes.
We've gone from one extreme to the other.

Don't get me started on that. As a former Ritalin-taker, let me say I more than agree with your assessment. Back when I was much younger, in the days before prescribing psychotropic drugs for children became widespread, a teacher of mine had her own way of dealing with hyperactive children. Oh, there is an actual, medical condition which causes hyperactivity. One symptom of it is that a person's physiological response to stimulants is 'backward', that is, speed slows them down. Knowing this, the teacher would give a child she suspected of hyperactivity a Coke. If the caffeine calmed the kid down, well, problem solved. generally, one or two in a school day took care of the problem.

Now, caffeine is not the best thing for a kid to have, but the dosage in a can of pop is fairly low, and as it is accompanied with food, easily metabolized. Contrast that, though, with Ritalin, which (I'm sure you all are aware) is methamphetamine in a vitamin-E base. I've yet to hear of any studies demonstrating the effects of chronic methamphetamine usage on a still-physically-developing brain (or body), but as prolonged usage of meth is known to impair fine motor skills (makes you twitchy) and cause acute paranoia and pseudo-schizophrenia, it's fair to say that it's not too good for you. Of course, Ritalin is no less physically addictive than street meth.

Hyperactivity is a physiological condition. ADD / ADHD is, to the best of my knowledge, not. Medication, of course, only fixes things which are physically-based (ex. putting a violent person on tranquilizers will not fix their problem, only make them less inclined to act upon it. Either some other medication or surgery -- if the disorder is organic -- or counseling -- if the disorder is psychological -- will actually fix their problem). Therapy/counseling is what you use for something else. Consider the possibility that severe, long-term damage is being done to children's brains on the basis of their being 'diagnosed' with a 'disorder' which has no physical source. Still, it gets the kids to shut up -- which is the real goal of teaching/parenting, right?

-end rant-

R. Gregory wrote:
Justin '77 wrote:
The article S'n'H post jibes fairly well with one of the major failings (as I see it) of Millenials as a generation. At work, I am just starting to see discernably Millie interns (class of '00, will be college juniors this fall). Their main distingushing feature is what appears to me to be a near-complete inability to handle autonomy. They tend to expect clear, detailed instructions (granted, that's a feature of an internship; still, the usual expectation is a certain amount of self-reliance one the framework of the assignment is laid out), and a constant stream of 'good job, keep at it Jeff' - type banal positive reinforcement. God forbid you try to criticize one of them!

As a final thought, I wonder if this kind of stunted development was evident in the young adulthood of the GI gen.

What struck me while reading the article was how much the Millies are starting to look like an adaptive, and not a civic, generation. The big red flag is the overdependence on emerging technologies, such as cell phones, pagers, and email, and a total inability to cope without those things. The other big red flag is all the psychotherapy and counseling. (Warning: More Boomer bashing ahead!) Narcissistic Boomers in the 1970s started all the psychotherapy and "support group" movements for themselves, and now it looks like they are forcing them on Millies in high school and college. Keeping their kids zombied out on Ritalin was bad enough, but parents demanding to see the private medical records of their *adult* children in college is inexcusable.

The real test of whether the Millies turn out as civics or adaptives is going to be how well they cope and maintain their ability to work in teams, once hard times hit and they find themselves without their cell phones, pagers, and psychotherapy. I've read up enough on the G.I. Generation to know that they were brought up to be a "good" generation, in contrast to the Lost, but they were not overprotected or smothered. The Silents were. The G.I.s were a civic generation partly because they were resourceful. They differed from the Lost primarily because the Lost were individualistic and "bad" while the G.I.s were do-gooders and worked well in teams, but both generations had the same resourceful, gritty, get-things-done spirit. If the Millies are lacking in resourcefulness and coping ability, that could be another bad sign that we are headed for a repeat of the Civil War Crisis anomoly.

If you read S&H's descriptions of the generations in T4T, You'll remember that the Millies are going through their natural phase. It's the no-nonsense members of Gen X who will provide toughness and resolve to the Millies as the Crisis continues on. The autonomy may not be there among the Millies yet, but they will most likely develop that as a group.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

These days, kids get labeled ADHD just for acting like normal kids sometimes.
We've gone from one extreme to the other.

Don't get me started on that. As a former Ritalin-taker, let me say I more than agree with your assessment. Back when I was much younger, in the days before prescribing psychotropic drugs for children became widespread, a teacher of mine had her own way of dealing with hyperactive children. Oh, there is an actual, medical condition which causes hyperactivity. One symptom of it is that a person's physiological response to stimulants is 'backward', that is, speed slows them down. Knowing this, the teacher would give a child she suspected of hyperactivity a Coke. If the caffeine calmed the kid down, well, problem solved. generally, one or two in a school day took care of the problem.

Now, caffeine is not the best thing for a kid to have, but the dosage in a can of pop is fairly low, and as it is accompanied with food, easily metabolized. Contrast that, though, with Ritalin, which (I'm sure you all are aware) is methamphetamine in a vitamin-E base. I've yet to hear of any studies demonstrating the effects of chronic methamphetamine usage on a still-physically-developing brain (or body), but as prolonged usage of meth is known to impair fine motor skills (makes you twitchy) and cause acute paranoia and pseudo-schizophrenia, it's fair to say that it's not too good for you. Of course, Ritalin is no less physically addictive than street meth.

Hyperactivity is a physiological condition. ADD / ADHD is, to the best of my knowledge, not. Medication, of course, only fixes things which are physically-based (ex. putting a violent person on tranquilizers will not fix their problem, only make them less inclined to act upon it. Either some other medication or surgery -- if the disorder is organic -- or counseling -- if the disorder is psychological -- will actually fix their problem). Therapy/counseling is what you use for something else. Consider the possibility that severe, long-term damage is being done to children's brains on the basis of their being 'diagnosed' with a 'disorder' which has no physical source. Still, it gets the kids to shut up -- which is the real goal of teaching/parenting, right?

-end rant-

Justin
Some things to make you think
1) I can't sit through a movie lasting more than a half hour without having to run across my house at least twice without methyphenidate. I'm not a little kid. I have a fully grown body. That does seem a bit odd don't you think.
2) Because it can be an addictive drug, the largest published study using children was one that involved ritalin. It was deemed the safest[b/] drug to give to children to date. It is safer than giving mild antibiotics to children. (this is either a NIMH study or an FDA study). However we are talking about the controled used of a stimulant psycotropic not the cronic overuse of someone who is addicted.
3) MRI studies show elviated activity in the frontal lobes of a person with ADHD
4) Mutiple Goldberg scales in diffrent enviroments should be the basis of a diagnosis, not how you react to medication. Unfotunatly the majority of persciptions given out to date are not made orignaly by a qualified therapist familiar with the Goldberg scale, so you have an over- and underdiagonosis of ADHD at the same time.
5) I agree that that teacher of yours is evil.
Sorry to argue with you yet again. (you seem nice, and I would like to have some common ground instead of arguments)
Faerowan

Originally Posted by faerowan

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

These days, kids get labeled ADHD just for acting like normal kids sometimes.
We've gone from one extreme to the other.

Don't get me started on that. As a former Ritalin-taker, let me say I more than agree with your assessment. Back when I was much younger, in the days before prescribing psychotropic drugs for children became widespread, a teacher of mine had her own way of dealing with hyperactive children. Oh, there is an actual, medical condition which causes hyperactivity. One symptom of it is that a person's physiological response to stimulants is 'backward', that is, speed slows them down. Knowing this, the teacher would give a child she suspected of hyperactivity a Coke. If the caffeine calmed the kid down, well, problem solved. generally, one or two in a school day took care of the problem.

Now, caffeine is not the best thing for a kid to have, but the dosage in a can of pop is fairly low, and as it is accompanied with food, easily metabolized. Contrast that, though, with Ritalin, which (I'm sure you all are aware) is methamphetamine in a vitamin-E base. I've yet to hear of any studies demonstrating the effects of chronic methamphetamine usage on a still-physically-developing brain (or body), but as prolonged usage of meth is known to impair fine motor skills (makes you twitchy) and cause acute paranoia and pseudo-schizophrenia, it's fair to say that it's not too good for you. Of course, Ritalin is no less physically addictive than street meth.

Hyperactivity is a physiological condition. ADD / ADHD is, to the best of my knowledge, not. Medication, of course, only fixes things which are physically-based (ex. putting a violent person on tranquilizers will not fix their problem, only make them less inclined to act upon it. Either some other medication or surgery -- if the disorder is organic -- or counseling -- if the disorder is psychological -- will actually fix their problem). Therapy/counseling is what you use for something else. Consider the possibility that severe, long-term damage is being done to children's brains on the basis of their being 'diagnosed' with a 'disorder' which has no physical source. Still, it gets the kids to shut up -- which is the real goal of teaching/parenting, right?

-end rant-

Justin
Some things to make you think
1) I can't sit through a movie lasting more than a half hour without having to run across my house at least twice without methyphenidate. I'm not a little kid. I have a fully grown body. That does seem a bit odd don't you think.

while ADHD does exist, i think he was pointing out the fact that ritalin was prescribed to 1 out of 3 kids or so (and most people put on ritalin did NOT actually have ADHD)

2) Because it can be an addictive drug, the largest published study using children was one that involved ritalin. It was deemed the safest[b/] drug to give to children to date. It is safer than giving mild antibiotics to children. (this is either a NIMH study or an FDA study). However we are talking about the controled used of a stimulant psycotropic not the cronic overuse of someone who is addicted.

I'd like to see that study... for some reason it doesn't sound right

3) MRI studies show elviated activity in the frontal lobes of a person with ADHD
4) Mutiple Goldberg scales in diffrent enviroments should be the basis of a diagnosis, not how you react to medication. Unfotunatly the majority of persciptions given out to date are not made orignaly by a qualified therapist familiar with the Goldberg scale, so you have an over- and underdiagonosis of ADHD at the same time.

makes sense

5) I agree that that teacher of yours is evil.
Sorry to argue with you yet again. (you seem nice, and I would like to have some common ground instead of arguments)
Faerowan

I agree on #5 but for a different reason... she seemed to be REWARDING people who misbehave (if you act out, i'll give you a coke)

I can't find the actual study. However I did Find its abstracts and refrences.

http://www.mhs.com/Jad/abstracts/v2n3.htm

Currently there is a followup study in the works as of 2000.

Faerowan(pacing across the halls for the bazillionth time as she types this)

Originally Posted by Xer of Evil

Scientific data can often be presented in a way that suits the purposes of the presenter, who is usually a drug company trying to sell their product. Let the buyer beware.

Just because something is "biological" doesn't mean that treatment must include medication. Breaking a leg is a biological problem, but you have to wear a cast and wait for it to heal, not just take a bunch of pills to fix it.

Also, what about the possibility that some of these "hyper" kids might be creative geniuses, and are just looking for ways to express themselves? It would be nice if our society could accept them for their good qualities instead of trying to make them fit some kind of mediocre mold.

XoE

Maybe it's not the hyperactive kids there's something wrong with, but the society that tries to control them.

faerowan and Alex,

Where in the Hell did you get the idea I disapproved of giving a caffenated beverage to a kid to calm them down? I thought, from the context of the rest of my post, that it was clear I intended to show a perfectly workable alternative to what is undeniably a hard psychotropic drug in treating even a physiological condition. Plus, if a kid didn't react in the classic 'hyperactive' manner (by mellowing out on a stimulant), the 'experiment' was not repeated. Clearly, the potential for damage in such a case is far, far less than what you would see subjecting a kid to a 'trial-run' -- usually 1-2 weeks of twice or three-times daily doses -- of Ritalin.

The irregular lobal activity faerowan describes is characteristic of (organic) hyperactivity. Attention-deficit, however, (to the best of my knowledge, and since I was 'diagnosed' as having it and put on the R for a couple of years, I've a personal interest in educating myself) has no recognized characteristic organic component.

As for the 1997 NIMH study, here is a link to an analysis of the study. I post only the paragraph headings; the link goes into much further detail:

I. The MTA was not a placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.
II. The blind classroom raters found no difference in any of the treatment groups, i.e., behavioral interventions were equal to medication interventions.
III. There was no control group of untreated children.
IV. Thirty-two percent of the Medication Management group was already on medication for ADHD at the start of the MTA.
V. The Medication Management group was highly selective (in ways that are not fully described) and probably not typical of children who seek services for "ADHD."
VI. The Medication Management group was relatively small.
VII. The children did not rate themselves improved.
VIII. Most of the subjects were boys.
IX. Drug treatment was continuous for fourteen months; behavioral treatments were stopped earlier.
X. The behavioral treatments were flawed.
XI. Most children suffered from adverse drug reactions (ADRs).
XII. There were no trained observers for ADRS.
XIII. There was no improvement in academic performance.
XIV. There was very little effect on social skills.
XV. All the principal investigators were well-known drug advocates.
XVI. The parents and teachers were exposed to prodrug propaganda.

This is not to say that some people do get nothing but benefit from the use of Ritalin (or any other psychotropic drug, for that matter). My primary beef is its relatively widespread use on children.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

faerowan and Alex,

Where in the Hell did you get the idea I disapproved of giving a caffenated beverage to a kid to calm them down

Where did you get the idea that I said anything at all about it?

God save me from becoming one of those hovering "helicopter parents." If there's anything I take from reading S&H, it's how not to treat my kids.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Justin '77

faerowan and Alex,

Where in the Hell did you get the idea I disapproved of giving a caffenated beverage to a kid to calm them down

Where did you get the idea that I said anything at all about it?

:oops: Whoops. I get all these alii mixed up. The folks I was replying to were faerowan and Number Two (is that William? anybody?).

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Justin '77

faerowan and Alex,

Where in the Hell did you get the idea I disapproved of giving a caffenated beverage to a kid to calm them down

Where did you get the idea that I said anything at all about it?

:oops: Whoops. I get all these alii mixed up. The folks I was replying to were faerowan and Number Two (is that William? anybody?).

yeah... it's me all right - and although I like the pragmatism of your teacher's solution, I would have likely acted up EVERY DAY in elementary school just so I could get that free Coke :-)