..to think there is nothing wrong with being a "pushy" parent (Part 2)

[Xenia]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1770750-To-think-that-there-is-nothing-wrong-with-being-a-pushy-mum?pg=40

Just in case anyone wanted to continue the thread which just got too full.

That's what HR fight against all the time - people wanting to recruit in their own image. I know a department which has bit by bit recruited lesbians and gay men, not particularly deliberately but because one found another and I suppose they were recruiting people like them or more classically the posh white men who went to the same schools or the Jewish or Muslim firms who recruit their own. Most bigger organisations get better people if they recruit more widely.

However even so you want people who will match your customers, not be alienated from them and that is not wrong. It is wise. If someone cannot talk well and client entertaining really matters you would be silly to recruit that person.

I suppose in some jobs the total nerd who spends their weekends off doing work things for interest and never needs to go home at night can be absolutely perfect and recruiting someone with no interest in relationships or hobbies might be a marvellous plan. In other jobs where you pick up customers by playing at the right golf course it might not be so wise. Giving children enough so that they will have things in common with those with whom they might work is always a good idea.

I too agree with Xenia.

I think being a pushy parent is not that nice TBH. I think encouraging your child to reach their full potential is different.

My DCs do lots of extra curricular stuff and want to do more but we just can't fit it in and I am also aware that they need time to do nothing and just play with their friends. At one stage we were busy every night but I found it really wasn't best for them at infant school age.

I do insist the DCs do their homework but not at the detriment of a weekend away or something and if they have committed to an activity then they do not have the option to just not go that night if they don't feel like it, they either go or they give it up (unless they are ill) as I think that is rude to the organiser.

I may be more pushy if the DCs were struggling and I would not discount that in the future but there is a difference with pushing your children into doing things YOU want them to do or constantly giving them additional work to do and helping them reach their potential. They still have to be children.

Yes I agree with having a wide range of interests etc, I think this is definitely what sets people aside from others, particularly in recruitment situations.

It has definitely helped me, I am from a working class background and was fairly academic but went down a professional qualification route rather than uni but my hobbies/music/voluntary/social stuff is what has often sealed a job or opportunity for me.

That's what HR fight against all the time - people wanting to recruit in their own image Yeah, that's good, it's good that there are systems to counteract lazy, ineffectual recruitment strategies. As you say, Xenia, when companies recruit more widely they do tend to get better people.

Xenia's points about matching employees to candidates are half right. Obviously if you're recruiting for a role where entertaining clients is important then you do want someone who has, at the very least, great communication skills and the ability to adapt them to different audiences. The funny thing is that social soft skills are an area which parents tend to be least 'pushy' about - we tend to presume that our kids will just pick this sort of thing up - and some people have them and some people don't. But again, it's obstinate to pretend that class doesn't come into this - it obviously does. The extent to which that's acceptable (if you care about it at all) depends on what Xenia means by 'someone who cannot talk well". If you mean 'someone who knows how to conduct themselves in professional manner to suit a variety of situations', then that's a commercial necessity, yes - if you mean someone who has the wrong accent....well that's something I have very limited sympathy for. Even then, it's difficult to gain some of those professional social skills if you're not habituated to that professional environment and its social norms - so, again, class comes into the recruitment process here. And again, presumptions about class and appropriate leisure interests are evident in Xenia's statement that "Giving children enough so that they will have things in common with those with whom they might work is always a good idea."

Personally, I don't share hobbies with many people I work with (to my knowledge) and it doesn't matter a jot. But if you are all agreed that cultural capital plays a strong role in recruitment for middle class jobs - then how can you hold that position and also claim that class is irrelevant here?

As for relying on extra curricular activities and holiday pursuits as a tier of the recruitment process. If the candidate can make a strong case as to why the skills they demonstrated in that hobby/pursuit are relevant in the role they seek - fair enough - but making that case is a skill in itself. A candidate who can clearly and cogently explain why their experience of singing in a choir has developed skills the role requires is a lot more impressive to me than a candidate who has an Olympic gold and expects that achievement to speak for itself. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't explain why it's relevant to me in this role, then you might as well not have done it. Similarly, if this candidate who biked across Vietnam could offer many examples of skills and attributes he developed or demonstrated on this journey, then yes, I'd treat that as relevant experience. But if someone was just impressed by someone going on a long haul holiday that barely any other young people can afford, in terms of time or finances, then I guess that person wouldn't be a very good interviewer.

Why does 'social class' creep into every post that you make Heads?

As for my bike guy, he saved all the money he made from working part time in Halfords in order to finance his trip. As part of his prep he reseached the route, mapped out areas to avoid, places of interest, places with suitable accomodation, visas and innoculations required etc etc. It was that coming from a teenager that impresed me and not the fact that he went on a 'long haul' holiday on a bike

I know that social class is a big deal with you but I can neither deny or confirm that he was MC.

Class is only relevant if you believe that WC kids can't build an impressive CV, Heads. Methinks it is you that is falling for your so -called MC anxiety .

Oh no, I presumed that the bike guy was able to make a great case for his achievement, and it that it was a work of genuine effort, determination and planning.

And I don't see why it's a bad thing to point out that social class is a factor in these kind of decisions. If you think that cultural capital is an important aspect of the recruitment process (which you seem to - I think that it's over-exaggerated and problematic where it does exist unquestioned) then how can you argue that class isn't an issue?

Why is it bad to talk openly about this?

The hobbies which fit in with your co workers at the council tip or council cleaners might well be bingo and pigeon fancying. I did not suggest the hobbies have to be upper class shooting etc.

You can make too big a thing about outside interests really. Most employers are looking for someone with relevant experience in the area which is why it is so hard as a new graduate as you tend not to have any experience. As soon as you have some people want you.

The interesting bit for HR is that if you recruit someone whose hobby you admire that might be unfair on someone who has spent 10 years cataloging something or writing wiki entries (as one of mine does). That is just the sort of skill which is not likely to impress most employers who want to know you watched the rugby that they did last night or you might want to join the work netball team or whatever and it is one of the problems if you are different from other people (I like to spend a lot of time in silence which was never going to be a great way to generate work and I have avoided client entertaining wonderfully well for nearly 30 years as I am not made that way and I still manage to do pretty well, but in many jobs it really does help if you are sociable and like to spend your evenings with work people and customers).

Bigger employers do not recruit by class but if you say haitch or you was or do not pronounce your Ts you are not going to sound right for plenty of the better paid jobs so it might be wise to change those things.

Wow - you openly believe that candidates should be discriminated against for having a working class or regional accent, and that the possibility of social mobility is dependent on their willingness to disguise it! Wow. Just wow.

Heads - why do you assume that WC people are incapable of building an impressive CV that is as good, if not bettter, than a MC applicant?

I'm saying that we tend to recruit people who have demonstrated leadership potential, drive and determination. You respond with accusations of MC bias. Why do you assume that WC applicants can't demonstrate leadership potential, drive and determination as well?

Habba, do you really not think that class is at play here? We've been talking about university admissions and high end graduate recruitment, and the rationale for pushy parenting strategies which focus on these as the end goal. Do you really think that class plays no part in these issues at all?

On the question of CVs - of course I think that WC students are capable of building great CVs, and CVs that are more impressive than MC students. Leadership potential, drive and determination are incredibly important, and I can think - and am sure you have seen - lots of examples of ways in which people can develop and demonstrate these skills.

Good recruiters take this into account, and don't blindly recruit in their own image - as you admitted happens in your own organisation. When recruiters are defaulting to recruiting in their own image, this does give candidates who share the same hobbies and interests in them some sort of advantage, and hobbies and interests are not without class dimensions. There are some sports which are played predominantly at certain types of schools, there are some languages which few students have an opportunity to learn. There are all sorts of latent class assumptions at work.

Now I, personally, think that the extent to which this matters in later life is over exaggerated, and that where it does exist, the classed assumptions that support it should be questioned and challenged where possible. But you (and Xenia) seem to think that it happens a lot, that it is important and that pushy parenting which anticipates these concerns by encouraging children to pursue the 'right' extra curricular activities is an appropriate response. Now you are saying that it isn't a big deal and doesn't give anyone any kind of advantage - which is it?

Where do I say that it isn't a big deal or that it doesn't give anyone an advantage?

You've just spent the last couple of posts arguing that applicants from WC backgrounds are at no disadvantage, because they can build equally good CVs, which don't discriminate between candidates on the basis of their hobbies.

Whereas you've spent much of the thread arguing that discrimination between candidates on the basis of their hobbies happens a lot, and that pushy parents who anticipate this are right to do so.

Sorry, that wasn't clear, I meant that you've argued that applicants from WC backgrounds are at no disadvantage, because they can build equally good CVs, and employers won't discriminate between candidates on the basis of their hobbies, but by the skills and attributes their CVs demonstrate.

This runs counter to your argument that certain extra curricular activities and hobbies give candidates an advantage over others.

Interestingly, we received a missive from DD's HT on Friday.

In it we parents were told that GCSEs were Very Important Indeed and so next year (year 10), a Very Important year, we must ensure that our DDs are not doing too much extra curricular stuff!

Clearly, the truly pushy parent must now ensure that only the Correct Amount of extra curricular stuff goes on .

Your two comments are non sequiturs .

I am suggesting that a candidate that biked it through Vietnam is more impressive than someone who lists 'playing COD' and 'pub-ing with mates' as things they like to do in their spare time.

So yes I do think that there is a discrimination between candidates on the basis of their hobbies. But, as I said upthread, no one really cares that the applicant plays three instruments as a toddler or learnt Mandarin at the age of three or that he captained U16 team. So how does this translate into me agreeing with pushy parents?

X post.

A bit of a silly summation of my position.

I expressed my admiration of a teenager that organised and funded a bike ride through Vietnam. I made it clear that I disagreed that playing three instruments and learning Mandarin at three years old offers a DC any significant advantage.

How can you read that and conclude that I believe that certain activities that a DC does after school will impress me as a recruiter?

Word I saw you mention that in the other thread. Was the letter just sent to you or to all parents? I'm not aware of there ever being anything like that at DD1's school (not directed at her anyway). In fact, some of her mates were doing the ten tors the weekend before their GCSEs started (on the Monday!) and nobody seemed to blink an eye at that. Having said that most of the kids have paused their music lessons for this term - I did offer DD1 that opportunity too especially since with one injured hand it isn't being the most productive time for her right now (or so I thought). But I was given rather more instruction than I actually wanted or needed on why I was in fact wrong, and how these lessons are, in fact, vitally important and very useful and also the only good parts of her day and thus she is still having all her many lessons (and I am still paying for them) despite the fact that exams continue. :) And nobody from the school has suggested that this is a Bad Thing.

I'm not actually sure to what extent you agree with pushy parents yourself or not.

But the comments do follow.

If you think that your bike candidate is more impressive than 'someone who lists 'playing COD' and 'pub-ing with mates' then fair enough (did you actually get such a candidate?)

But you've spent a lot of time claiming that companies, your own company included, recruit in their own image, and said that, since the people making the decisions in your organisation are 'alpha-male types' then it's 'no surprise' that they favour candidates who played for the XV, or whatever. And it's clear that some hobbies and interests have class associations. And not all candidates have equal access to all hobbies and interests. A WC school student will be, in general, less likely to have the opportunity to play rugby at school, or go skiing, or receive intensive cello tuition from a young age. A company who recruits in their own image, and does so by favouring certain activities (as you argued happens, I'm sure you're not guilty of it yourself) may be doing WC candidates a disservice.

Now I don't think that too many companies do recruit blindly 'in their own image' these days, as people are more and more conscious of the class issues and pitfalls around this. And you also seem to agree with me on this, since you say that "no one really cares that the applicant plays three instruments as a toddler or learnt Mandarin at the age of three or that he captained U16 team" - and that's what I've argued all along. So I think that pushy parents get too anxious about whether or not their DCs are doing the 'right' activities and whether or not they will be advantageous in the future.

So I think it's absolutely proper and right and fair that companies take candidates non-academic achievements into account where appropriate, but I think (probably just as you do) that this works best when recruiters do not approach their evaluation of those achievements with unexamined class assumptions, and that recruiters should aim for a fair and transparent process which tries to avoid recruiting in the companies 'own image', since class privilege is inevitably at play there.

Russians it was to all parents, though it felt rather pertinent to us ...

It could be somehting that comes out towards the end of every year 9. A buck 'em up email for the start of the GCSE courses.

Or it might be because the girls have just hd the results of their year 9 exams (perhaps they weren't as great as expected - dunno about that)...

Or perhaps the school has seen a sharp rise in EC stuff.

To be honest, much of the EC stuff happens within school! There is so much on offer. I guess though, that the girls don't need to try to juggle it all and they want the parents to keep an eye on things.

Wow - you openly believe that candidates should be discriminated against for having a working class or regional accent,

Should a person be discriminated against because of their accent? No. I wouldn't decide to 'not employ' a person just because they had a certain accent - that would be counter-productive at best. With that said, there are some roles where having a strong accent could be a significant disadvantage - especially if the accent were so strong that people had difficulty understanding what is being said. There are occasions where something like that has to be considered, both in terms of potential problems and (in the case of an otherwise superior candidate) how to get around those problems.

Oh god I'm a pushy parent and I never knew it. The 3 eldest dc all play instruments, all speak a foreign language, all play sports to quite a serious level. 1 of them has even been interviewed for being one of the youngest qualified coaches in the world. The music is because they enjoy it same with the sports though in fairness they do have a sporting background, their dad has represented GB in the past, their uncle was very successful on the junior circuits for his sports and myself and their aunt both represented our counties.

I've not done any of this thinking it would improve their chances of a top university though I'm now wondering whether it played a part but because I believed they would enjoy it.

I do know one of the organ scholarship people at oxbridge and not only did they need to show real talent for the organ they also needed top A level grades for their subject. They would still have got into oxbridge without the organ they just wouldn't have got the perks they did. My own daughter passed the 11+ and went to the local grammar without a private tutor.

TBH I don't know any parents who wanted their DC to do a particular activity because it would help a university application in later life!

And I know a hell of a lot of motivated and pushy parents!

The fact that the activity may help in any ways, direct or indirect, was more a happy coincidence.

Oh there are loads of good reasons to do all kinds of activities. I've nothing against activities. I think that it's a good idea to encourage your kids to do all kinds of things, and get lots of broad, fun experiences while they have the time and opportunity to do so.

I just think that pushy parents who are particularly focused on Oxbridge, or seeing their DCs in certain jobs, aren't necessarily being very sensible, and that going to extremes like having their DC begin violin lessons at the age of three, really isn't likely to help them achieve that goal anyway. If the three year old really loves the lessons, then fair enough, but activities should be pursued for the sheer enjoyment of them, and for the satisfaction that hard work and practise can bring. Pushy parents that are worrying about their children being 'left behind' and fussing about what the outcome of their DCs effort will be in 10/20 years time are over the top, imo.