Devil's Advocate: The young people of today are more coddled than ever and it's hurting us.

I don't know if replies are allowed here. but I AM IN.

Of Pen and Paper said:

I don't know if replies are allowed here. but I AM IN.

Click to expand...

oh my god I thought the thread was clear enough, sorry!

Yeah, the action happens in this thread! Change my view right here!

You say "coddled," I say "respectful." Young people understand better than any generation before them that there are more points of view than have been given voice in the past, that there are people who have historically not had a chance to assert themselves on an equal level, and that too often in the past these voices have been shouted down by the traditional, entrenched people in power. When a student wants a safe space they are helping people to speak for themselves while at the same time teaching others about the importance of giving everyone a voice and the inherent biases and limitations that would exist without these safe spaces. Whether you agree that they're good or effective, it still takes courage and hard work to fight the uphill battle against the system. Coddled kids wouldn't be able to act on their own like this.

And the idea of coddling in general, is it always a bad thing? Admitting that you're anxious about school and life and college applications and finding a job isn't bad if it leads them to getting help. There's nothing wrong about asking for help. Getting help is one of the ways people learn. When you look at how much easier it was for previous generations to go to college, get a job, buy a house, start a family, you can see why a young person today might be anxious. They're being held to a different standard and being expected to perform just as well. The fact that you still have people wanting to go to school, to college, young people who are turning out in sometimes record numbers to vote, that shows that there are young people who are facing the challenges before them. They're not hurting anyone. If anything it's the older generations who are piling on the hurt by pushing for austerity, by making it harder to get a job or find a place to live, by not considering the realities that young people face when they push and pressure for all the things they were able to do when the world isn't the same place. They didn't have to worry about climate change when they were young or crippling student debt.

I actually agree with this 100%. Kids these days are so spoiled, mollycoddled, and overly sensitive that they don't understand how the world works. The excessive and severely mishandled focus on social justice has bred an entire generation of SJWs who take offense to everything and have a black and white view of the world. A lot of these kids are less careful about choosing their role models - I don't consider women like Laci Green, Lena Dunham, or Anita Sarkeesian to be good role models for young women. I feel like if a lot of these SJWs met historical feminists like Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Emmeline Pankhurst, Alice Paul, Simone de Beauvoir, or Betty Friedan, they wouldn't consider them real feminists. (To say nothing of how they'd react to past feminists who were very bigoted like Rebecca Latimer Felton and Margaret Sanger...) We also teach them that representation in a work of fiction is more important than the overall quality of the work, which, I hate to break it to you, is not true. (It doesn't seem honest when every TV show is including gay male characters, only for most of them to be walking gay stereotypes.) I'm not saying that all young people are like this - none of my friends are. But it's sad that we live in a world where people would rather cling to their childhood and hide all day behind a computer instead of growing up and facing the world like an adult. I think these bratty college students need to be grateful that colleges give them so much freedom. In some countries, college students don't have nearly as much freedom. There is such a thing as too much freedom - and it's very apparent here.

zakisrage said:

I actually agree with this 100%. Kids these days are so spoiled, mollycoddled, and overly sensitive that they don't understand how the world works. The excessive and severely mishandled focus on social justice has bred an entire generation of SJWs who take offense to everything and have a black and white view of the world. A lot of these kids are less careful about choosing their role models - I don't consider women like Laci Green, Lena Dunham, or Anita Sarkeesian to be good role models for young women. I feel like if a lot of these SJWs met historical feminists like Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Emmeline Pankhurst, Alice Paul, Simone de Beauvoir, or Betty Friedan, they wouldn't consider them real feminists. (To say nothing of how they'd react to past feminists who were very bigoted like Rebecca Latimer Felton and Margaret Sanger...) We also teach them that representation in a work of fiction is more important than the overall quality of the work, which, I hate to break it to you, is not true. (It doesn't seem honest when every TV show is including gay male characters, only for most of them to be walking gay stereotypes.) I'm not saying that all young people are like this - none of my friends are. But it's sad that we live in a world where people would rather cling to their childhood and hide all day behind a computer instead of growing up and facing the world like an adult. I think these bratty college students need to be grateful that colleges give them so much freedom. In some countries, college students don't have nearly as much freedom. There is such a thing as too much freedom - and it's very apparent here.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to change my view? o.O Have you read the OP? This event is a different kind of thread compared to the usual thread in RT. Instead of the argument being between people of two opposing perspectives, it's between all participants and the host (that's me!). Sometimes, that means arguing for a perspective that's not the same as your own. That's fine, since that's what being a Devil's Advocate is all about.

As the new generation, we have to fix the mistakes of our ancestors to pave the way for our descendants. Our burdens of dealing with national debts is worse than ever before. And that is just one of many mistakes we must fix! We have to solve racism, corporatism, human rights, starvation, etc. We are the ones dealing with this stuff, not the other generations. This is far from being coddled!

Only two responses so far, oh well, I'll start responding to them now!

Esper said:

You say "coddled," I say "respectful." Young people understand better than any generation before them that there are more points of view than have been given voice in the past, that there are people who have historically not had a chance to assert themselves on an equal level, and that too often in the past these voices have been shouted down by the traditional, entrenched people in power. When a student wants a safe space they are helping people to speak for themselves while at the same time teaching others about the importance of giving everyone a voice and the inherent biases and limitations that would exist without these safe spaces. Whether you agree that they're good or effective, it still takes courage and hard work to fight the uphill battle against the system. Coddled kids wouldn't be able to act on their own like this.

Click to expand...

This I can understand, but couldn't there be negative spillovers? Safe spaces might be a good way to teach about structural biases, but what happens when you want to extend that "safety" to inherently "unsafe" spaces? Students are complaining about the content of certain literature or sociological classes that offend them and have tried to get that controversial content removed from the curricula. I think this is an example of "safety" gone too far. We need safe spaces, but we also need spaces where all ideas can be challenged and discussed. I certainly don't think the two are mutually exclusive, but I imagine that those who object to curricula out of personal offence do. I don't think fighting for safe spaces is coddling per se, but when people object to controversial content in a university course and want to see it removed, that sounds like "safety" is being taken too far and indicates a level of coddling that is expected.

Esper said:

And the idea of coddling in general, is it always a bad thing? Admitting that you're anxious about school and life and college applications and finding a job isn't bad if it leads them to getting help. There's nothing wrong about asking for help. Getting help is one of the ways people learn. When you look at how much easier it was for previous generations to go to college, get a job, buy a house, start a family, you can see why a young person today might be anxious. They're being held to a different standard and being expected to perform just as well. The fact that you still have people wanting to go to school, to college, young people who are turning out in sometimes record numbers to vote, that shows that there are young people who are facing the challenges before them. They're not hurting anyone. If anything it's the older generations who are piling on the hurt by pushing for austerity, by making it harder to get a job or find a place to live, by not considering the realities that young people face when they push and pressure for all the things they were able to do when the world isn't the same place. They didn't have to worry about climate change when they were young or crippling student debt.

Click to expand...

Admitting anxiety and acknowledging adversity is essential to overcoming adversity, no doubt about that. I don't think that's part of the coddling problem. What is the problem is that what the students' claim to be adversity is reaching an ever lower bar. According to a head of Counselling at a major American university:

"I have done a considerable amount of reading and research in recent months on the topic of resilience in college students. Our students are no different from what is being reported across the country on the state of late adolescence/early adulthood. There has been an increase in diagnosable mental health problems, but there has also been a decrease in the ability of many young people to manage the everyday bumps in the road of life. Whether we want it or not, these students are bringing their struggles to their teachers and others on campus who deal with students on a day-to-day basis. The lack of resilience is interfering with the academic mission of the University and is thwarting the emotional and personal development of students."

Click to expand...

I agree with you that our generation has significant financial challenges of its own and whatever griping or complaints we have about that is more indicative about our times rather than our resilience/coddledness. But there seems to be a different issue: that we seem less and less able to overcome daily problems. Is that something that's also explained by the financial stress of our times? If it isn't, does that mean our generation is coddled to a certain extent? Is the level of coddledness justified? So far, I agree with the sentiments reflected by that head of Counselling - that we seem less and less able to tackle everyday problems.

BadSheep said:

As the new generation, we have to fix the mistakes of our ancestors to pave the way for our descendants. Our burdens of dealing with national debts is worse than ever before. And that is just one of many mistakes we must fix! We have to solve racism, corporatism, human rights, starvation, etc. We are the ones dealing with this stuff, not the other generations. This is far from being coddled!

Click to expand...

That is honestly a pretty original way of putting it - never thought about it that way before. Your conviction here almost persuaded me, but I'll ask you the same question as I did Esper. Is our apparent lack of resilience explained by the magnitude of the problems of our day or is it something separate as suggested by that head of Counselling? I'm not yet convinced that it's really the former.

If this head of counseling is anything like the heads of departments of schools I've been to or worked at, they are probably on the older and/or more traditional side of things so I would take their observations with a grain of salt. They're likely comparing the young people they're seeing to previous generations of students who have walked though their door. I imagine that in years past that group of students was more white, more affluent, and that current groups, because of strides we've made to making education more accessible (if not less expensive) mean that more students from more backgrounds are being brought before this counselor. Maybe what's happening is that they're just seeing people who they hadn't seen before, people with more difficult lives, so the aggregate seems, on the whole, to have more difficulty with handling day-to-day troubles.

But let's assume that the students are just less capable of handling daily troubles. They have more daily troubles than people used to. Today, a young person has to be "on" 24/7. You are always connected to people with technology, and everything you do is scrutinized and commented on. Whether positive or not, you have to spend a considerable amount of your mental energies on what you every moment because it will affect the world around and how people respond to you. You can't really get away from that. Technology now makes it very easy to know about and be presented with information about the state of the world. People today are more informed about the dangers of the world than any generation before. That might not have a direct influence on your daily life, but if you've got a conscience then you're likely thinking about it at least some of the time, and that added stress means you've got less strength to use in propping yourself up day to day.

Regarding safe spaces, without knowing what content students are asking to have removed I can't really comment on that. I will say that education is far from biased. In particular, humanities courses have often had a distinctive European focus and have not given as much regard to the history, progress, or contributions of non-white people.

Esper said:

If this head of counseling is anything like the heads of departments of schools I've been to or worked at, they are probably on the older and/or more traditional side of things so I would take their observations with a grain of salt. They're likely comparing the young people they're seeing to previous generations of students who have walked though their door. I imagine that in years past that group of students was more white, more affluent, and that current groups, because of strides we've made to making education more accessible (if not less expensive) mean that more students from more backgrounds are being brought before this counselor. Maybe what's happening is that they're just seeing people who they hadn't seen before, people with more difficult lives, so the aggregate seems, on the whole, to have more difficulty with handling day-to-day troubles.

Click to expand...

I should've mentioned what the professor (from Boston College) said in further detail in the last post:

A year ago I received an invitation from the head of Counseling Services at a major university to join faculty and administrators for discussions about how to deal with the decline in resilience among students. At the first meeting, we learned that emergency calls to Counseling had more than doubled over the past five years. Students are increasingly seeking help for, and apparently having emotional crises over, problems of everyday life. Recent examples mentioned included a student who felt traumatized because her roommate had called her a "*****" and two students who had sought counseling because they had seen a mouse in their off-campus apartment. The latter two also called the police, who kindly arrived and set a mousetrap for them.

Faculty at the meetings noted that students' emotional fragility has become a serious problem when in comes to grading. Some said they had grown afraid to give low grades for poor performance, because of the subsequent emotional crises they would have to deal with in their offices. Many students, they said, now view a C, or sometimes even a B, as failure, and they interpret such "failure" as the end of the world. Faculty also noted an increased tendency for students to blame them (the faculty) for low grades—they weren't explicit enough in telling the students just what the test would cover or just what would distinguish a good paper from a bad one. They described an increased tendency to see a poor grade as reason to complain rather than as reason to study more, or more effectively. Much of the discussions had to do with the amount of handholding faculty should do versus the degree to which the response should be something like, "Buck up, this is college." Does the first response simply play into and perpetuate students' neediness and unwillingness to take responsibility? Does the second response create the possibility of serious emotional breakdown, or, who knows, maybe even suicide?

Click to expand...

He lists a couple anecdotes, but I think the statistic is objective. And the fact that other faculty members have grown afraid to give low grades is an indication of some change. I don't think it was a matter of difficult lives - in fact, wouldn't people who grew up with difficult lives be more resilient and less prone to the kind of behaviours he's describing? What he's describing seems more likely to come from someone who's had a sheltered life.

Esper said:

But let's assume that the students are just less capable of handling daily troubles. They have more daily troubles than people used to. Today, a young person has to be "on" 24/7. You are always connected to people with technology, and everything you do is scrutinized and commented on. Whether positive or not, you have to spend a considerable amount of your mental energies on what you every moment because it will affect the world around and how people respond to you. You can't really get away from that. Technology now makes it very easy to know about and be presented with information about the state of the world. People today are more informed about the dangers of the world than any generation before. That might not have a direct influence on your daily life, but if you've got a conscience then you're likely thinking about it at least some of the time, and that added stress means you've got less strength to use in propping yourself up day to day.

Click to expand...

I kind of see your point about always being on technology, but I don't buy that we're stressed out because we carry the weight of the world on our shoulders. It seems a bit presumptuous. Even if that were true, one could say that's indicative of having poor priorities if that's the reason we can't handle day-to-day life as well.

Kanzler said:

He lists a couple anecdotes, but I think the statistic is objective. And the fact that other faculty members have grown afraid to give low grades is an indication of some change. I don't think it was a matter of difficult lives - in fact, wouldn't people who grew up with difficult lives be more resilient and less prone to the kind of behaviours he's describing? What he's describing seems more likely to come from someone who's had a sheltered life.

~

I kind of see your point about always being on technology, but I don't buy that we're stressed out because we carry the weight of the world on our shoulders. It seems a bit presumptuous. Even if that were true, one could say that's indicative of having poor priorities if that's the reason we can't handle day-to-day life as well.

Click to expand...

Regarding teachers:

Those scenarios could also be seen as teachers and faculty being perhaps unable or unwilling to deal with an upset student and acquiescing too easily. I work in an educational environment and teachers are worried about giving low grades because it can reflect badly on them (affecting potentially whether they'll continue to have a job) and there is pressure on teachers to pass more students because that's often an element to how funding for schools is decided. (Lots of students failing - less money for "bad" schools.) So teachers have a reason to pass more students and not confront students if it's easier to let them have their way. I'm not saying that all or even many teachers do this, but it's not something that teachers would be unaware of.

And of course we all have anecdotes about the really strange, extreme, or memorable cases because that's just how life is and we remember those better. Someone at my college tried to heat a tortilla in a paper towel on an open stove burner, not in a pan. 99+% of the students would know why they shouldn't do that.

Regarding technology and priorities:

I guess this is one of those things where it depends on who you are and your views. To me, someone who was told at a young age that the environment is important and that we should save it, I take that message to heart and it informs lots of my decisions. My parents and grandparents didn't have that. They didn't have to worry about recycling, saving water and electricity, eating food that was produced ethically, and so on. Essentially what I'm saying is that ignorance is bliss and if you only have to worry about getting through school then you won't have so many extra worries making it harder.

This is the kind of rubbish they give people to write about in college. This question has no real answer or solution. All I can say think about the ladder of that. Nobody is going to survive in a world where you jail people for not having jobs or even push the homeless into camps as with the Nazi's and the Jews or US and the Japanese residences

@Esper

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this argument at all. Recycling became a thing around the 70's or 80's depending on where in the West you live so it's at least something your parents' generation has experienced. Saving water and electricity for environmental reasons might be new (then again not really - the environmental movement has been around since the 60's) but the working class has always been concerned with saving water and electricity for financial reasons. As for eating food that's produced ethically, there are a whole bunch of young people today who don't really care about that. I think you're understating how long these issues have affected young people of prior generations and overstating how much young people today care about ethical consumption.

I think there is a case to be made on the magnitude of the problems we face though. I remember one of my professors (who usually isn't very political) remarking on how he could pay for the entire school year with a summer job. You could make the point that although we have nice toys and all, we don't have the same economic or financial conditions, and those matter a lot more.

@BadSheep

Do you have anything more to add?

@RegalSin

So are you gonna bite or not? :P

@Everybody

You're still free to jump in at any time. You can build on other people's arguments as long as you're not just parroting them. I hope nobody felt that everything that could be said has been said because I'm not entirely convinced that the OP has been refuted yet.

I'm willing to be convinced for any one of the following:

- the young people of today aren't coddled anymore than before, but we're still being hurt - it's just not due to coddling.

- the young people of today are being coddled, but it doesn't hurt us

- we're neither coddled nor are we hurt more than the generation before us

Play to the strengths of your arguments and tone down on the weaknesses. There's no reason that you have to address the issue exactly the way I frame it.