To think that there is nothing wrong with being a "pushy" mum

[CliftonGirl]

Just that really. I used to be a "relaxed" mum with DS1 which I regret, but thankfully I switched to a "pushy" mode when he was in year four. As a result he moved from a bottom-middle set to a super selective grammar and doing brilliantly. I am very pushy with the younger DCs.

I've noticed a lot of people on mumsnet think that we are still in the 20th century and you can get to Oxbridge from a mediocre school without much effort. AIBU to think that the world is much more competitive now and there is no choice but to push DC to achieve?

Ps, English is not my first language, so please don't flame me for the spelling mistakes.

I've no idea about Auckland but HK Uni is a highly ranked institution.

Anyway, we all know someone who lived in a garden shed, ate bread and water, didn't go to school until 11 and went to Bournemouth Poly and then went onto great things :) But doesn't really prove anything

'But doesn't really prove anything'
Except possibly that our acquaintances are over forty and things were different back in the day. I'd say the name of the institution is, currently at least, more important than ever .

slip I would argue that in the tech industry, for a new grad, a small startup will look at you more as a person. They won't have as many apps as the big giants. And you just find the next google.

I mean you might ended up in the next google.

I think it's worth reminding ourselves that "pushy parenting" in the UK is more or less a direct result of opening up access to higher education in the post-war era. Rather than keep university numbers down, but promote social mobility through education, administrations decided to extend access more widely. All of a sudden, bright enough middle class kids, who knew that going to university was their birthright, were having to compete with whip smart kids from working class backgrounds. In the following decades, continuing to increase student numbers while pushing the marketisation of education meant that there is a perception of greater 'competition' for certain courses, because more and more students and families are realising that these opportunities are not the preserve of the middle classes. This, to be frank, is what drives the anxiety amongst middle class parents that their kids won't 'get to Oxbridge' without three instruments and an olympic gold. These parents will do what they believe will facilitate this (whether or not it is in fact beneficial) but they ought to be honest with themselves about the fact that they are not solely motivated by the intellectual development of their child, but by fear that middle class hegemony is under attack.

headsdown I don't think that's necessarily true.

Myself and most of the pushy parents I know are not part of the traditional middle class.

We either come from those whip smart working class roots, or are immigrants or both.

I find most people from traditional middle class backgrounds quite complacent actually. They still see entry to Oxbridge and RG as their DC's birthright. They sem fairly clueless about the changing world around them and the shrinking of their mileu .

Middle class hemegony is not under attack. It is in a new ascendancy, hence concerns over decline in social mobility. A good few recruiters recruit by telephone too so they can weed out people with the wrong accent and bad verbal skills.

I also don't think bright middle class children did regard university as a birthright. Most of the girls at my school did not go to university. Only 15% of children did when I went. The fact more go now is not a problem because they go to places like Bournemouth poly which for good jobs is not going to help you get into the running even if a few state schools like to perpetrate that kind of myth.

Oh I don't necessarily mean "traditional" middle class, as in the established upper middle class.

But a more flexible notion of the middle class, who may well come from working class roots, or be immigrants. Most likely benefited from widening access to higher education in the 60s/70s themselves. Still middle class though, and heavily invested in educational/cultural capital. And now at the stage where they are thinking about their childrens' prospects - and realising that in an age of even greater educational opportunity, cultural capital is the trump card they have to play. And boy do they start playing it.

It's not coincidental that pushy parenting has emerged as university access has widened. Though it seems counterintuitive.

Not sure it is particularly new. The private schools always did well at music and sport etc. When applying for jobs in some jobs having things in common with those whom you will work can matter (although I doubt that is so with many of the computer programmers with whom I've worked where it is all about your abilities and the same with many scientists). This is all about entry level. Once you are into anything if you are the best there is then future job hunting is often about the huge amount of customers you will take with you when you join a new place or the fact you are the best in the UK at what you do.

Oh believe me, I don't think middle class hegemony is under attack! I think that there is an anxiety amongst parents that it is under attack in the higher education sector. And one of the ways in which middle class people express it is by denigrating students in 'lesser' universities and emphasising the 'competiveness' of others. You don't need to be a cello playing tennis champion with ten a-levels to get into Oxbridge. But universities and middle class parents have vested interests in perpetuating that kind of mythology.

My own very middle class credentials (on your version of mc HeadsDown) are being betrayed in that case, by my sustained repetition on threads such as these that you absolutely do not need to be a cello playing tennis champ with ten A Levels to get into Oxford or Cambridge. So how does that work? Many others on these threads are the same. Yours is no more than a soundbite, not a particularly edgy one at that.

Um..I agree with you. Of course you don't have to do all that extra hoo-hah to get into Oxbridge. Nor do I think that all middle class parents are pushy parents. Or that all pushy parents are middle class.

All that I'm saying is that the rise of pushy parenting in our culture has emerged in response to the widening of access to university, which seems counterintuitive, but has a lot to do with anxieties about class.

I'm sure I'll be slammed for this but on the micro level of MN what I think I detect is that all those archetypal broad definition middle class parents with vicarious Oxford and Cambridge aspirations are those with DC who are most unlikely to get in. Either because they're middling achievers from privileged backgrounds and schools or because their mother/ father/ both is/ are hugely oppressive and pushy and the kids get to the point where they bust or else can't give a shit. The ones with kids who get in on this micro MN level do seem to be the ones who are far more relaxed. I can think of two recent honourable exceptions to this rule in either direction, but then there's always an exception to each rule. That said, I'm not quite sure why Oxbridge has such a centrality to this thread on pushy parenting but it rather prettily encapsulates the angst which is this niche part of MN.

I agree with you Yellow. I think the pushy middle class parents this thread is largely discussing (which is not to say that all mc parents are pushy or that all pushy parents are mc) are likely to find that their efforts don't result in the goals that they are aiming for (for their DC). In my experience, when education gets to the stage that it requires ability beyond that which can be coached, more relaxed, self-motivated, 'naturally' talented DCs tend to do better. I also agree that the focus on Oxbridge is daft and short-sighted.

My real concern with the pushy mc parents who buy into myth that Oxbridge degrees are a guarantee of worldly success, and that you have to be a super-extra-curricular genius champion to get in, is not so much the effect this will have on their DCs, but the fact that this hysteria puts children from ordinary working class backgrounds, or children who have not been pushed, off applying to top Universities - as this hysteria encourages them to assume that they have no chance, or that these Universities are not for the likes of them.

And in turn I absolutely agree on the effect of the hysteria point. Hence my dogged repetition on this incy wincy micro scale that it's all just more self-serving bollocks.

wordfactory said:
"Myself and most of the pushy parents I know are not part of the traditional middle class. We either come from those whip smart working class roots, or are immigrants or both."

HeadsDown said:
"But a more flexible notion of the middle class, who may well come from working class roots, or be immigrants."

Sorry to go on a tangent here, but I've seen this often on MN...

Why do you assume immigrants are working class, "new middle class" or any homogenous class for that matter?

It's quite a strange way to qualify someone's social background - are you stating that all foreign nationals moving into this country fit the same narrow social-economical background?

I struggle to understand why people roll their eyes at DCs like mine who learn three instruments. DS's friend's dad is a coach driver so WC? The boy goes to football club, karate and trampolining. Why is learning three instruments instead of three physical activities worthy of eye rolling?

And I've yet to meet a parent who thinks that learning three instruments will get their DCs into Oxbridge. That is like suggesting that DS's friend is only doing football, karate and trampolining because it looks good on his CV. Could it be possible that my DS plays three instruments because he likes playing instruments?

DD1 has lessons in 4 and plays more. DD2 the same. Even DS, who is the least musical of them can play 4 (lessons in 2). None of them want to go to Oxbridge.

And my eldest four, who (very sadly) don't play an instrument between them, all go to 'Oxbridge'. It's all bollocks really.

I certainly don't roll my eyes at those who are proficient at three instruments Habba, I'm in awe, and feel guilt: I think there's some latent musical talent in my DC which I've failed to let flower. Not sufficiently pushy to explore possible avenues you see, but nothing to do with 'Oxbridge' at all.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that all immigrants, or all people whose family have a history of immigration fit the same narrow social-economic background.

I think word was just saying that some pushy parents (with whom she identifies) come from a working class background, or may be immigrants, or both.

I was agreeing and saying that some middle class people are immigrants.

I don't think anyone is assuming any degree of homogeneity at all.

Whereas I play rather more than 4 and I went to Cambridge So it must be true. Hooray. I haven't got an Olympic medal though. :( Although I am Olympic standard in fretting, and being lazy. And shopping.

I don't think there's anything in the world wrong with learning to play musical instruments. There are a million good reasons for learning to play musical instruments. I'm just really, really dubious about the notion that the principle reason to learn to play a musical instrument is that there will be a socio-economic payoff at some point in the future, and some pushy parents (including the OP) are very much working on that assumption.

I don't know about Cambridge but everything I have seen and read about Oxford Uni is bloody amazing. The stats speak for themselves. None have my DC's have applied to Oxbridge so I am not biased.

I think it is a truely inspirational place and I would have loved one of my kids to go there. Fortunately, there are plenty of other great Uni's to choose from.

Does this make me a failed MC pushy Mum

Heads - how many parents do you actually know who think that there is a socio-economic payoff to playing an instrument?

I have several friends for whom there have been not just social-economic but economic- economic payoffs directly and solely related to the fact that they can play an instrument. For me and my kids though, at present, it's payOUT not payoff.

My DH (and my girls. And myself) plays the accordion. There are surprising socio-economic benefits deriving from box playing, actually. But not what you might call payOffs.