:iagree: I think maybe look at this as an opportunity to find ways to be kind to this aunt at other times. If she'd enjoy manicures, then maybe setting up a "spa day" a few times a year would be a great way for the family to get together without expecting this niece to make exceptions for a wedding-party-only event.

She's not excluding anybody from the wedding, though. I got married at 22. The wedding was really for my family. My mother planned most of it. We made decisions about the reception and even the ceremony based on the needs of our guests, especially older relatives. It really was something I thought about as a family celebration. The thing that was for me was having three of my good girlfriends--who weren't in the wedding party (I just had my sister as my maid of honor, to avoid having to pick and choose and hurt feelings), but were readers during the ceremony--over to chat and hang out the night before the wedding. It wasn't about being "exclusive"; it was about my wanting to have a night with my good friends. If I'd been expected to invite over other people who I wasn't all that close too--an aunt, a cousin, my grandma--it would have been something entirely different. That's not to say that, in another context, I wouldn't love to hang out with my aunt, cousin, or grandma. I would. But, that night I wanted to spend a few hours with my best girlfriends, people I'd known since we were in middle school, and I don't think I was being exclusive or selfish in doing so.

I'm not sure it's mean, given the context. My extended family has had its fair share of wedding drama, some of it resulting in people not talking to one another for years. (Thankfully my immediate family has never been involved in it; we're not very dramatic people.) In every instance, the problem has been that an exception was made for one person, but not another person. Great-Aunt Ann was invited to the wedding, but not Great-Aunt Sue. Cousin Joan was allowed to go to the bachelorette party even though she wasn't in the wedding party, but Cousin Jen wasn't invited. Even though the invitation said adults-only, Aunt Sally was allowed to bring her kids to the reception and now Aunt Linda is mad because she had to struggle to find a sitter. Making exceptions seems, in these situations, to sometimes snowball into bigger family conflicts than you would think possible. While on the one hand it would have been kind of your niece to make an exception for your aunt and have her along, on the other hand it could have resulted in a lot more hurt feelings from other family members.

I think a lot of it is that ages seem a lot older before you get there. ;) I remember thinking I couldn't imagine having a baby after 30, yet my two pregnancies in my 30s have been so much easier and more relaxed than my pregnancy in my mid-20s, and I just feel like I'm a much more confident, relaxed, and easygoing mom, too. At this point I could totally see having a baby in my 40s, but for us it's more of a family size/child spacing issue.

That's pretty much how my son is. I'm 33. I have a good friend who is 48 and her oldest is the same age as my son (she had her kids at 41 and 44). I don't think my son notices that she's older than I am, at all. He also doesn't notice that my friend who is 25 (had her first at 18) is younger than me. We're all just mom age. When I started thinking about having kids, I remember thinking I wanted to be done by 30. That seems funny to me now. I still feel really young at 33, and DH and I work in academia, so people think we're really young to be having our third when most people in that setting our age aren't planning on having their first for a few more years. My husband's old dissertation adviser and his wife are 40 and just had their first, and that's far more common.

I don't know, I think the problem began when your mother invited your sister along, and not when your niece said she couldn't go. I'm sure your mom didn't intend to be rude or to impose, but I'm guessing your niece didn't intend to be rude, either. I tend to think it's better not to assume malicious intentions on other people's part, especially during high-stress times like right before a wedding. I agree that this is not the time to be worrying about teaching your niece lessons; it's her wedding, weddings are very stressful for many people, and I'd extend grace to her. Yes, it would have been nice if she'd said your aunt could come along, but we don't know why she said no, and I'd go on the assumption that she wasn't trying to be cruel or rude. Maybe she just wants to have as relaxed a time as possible before the ceremony, and she'd feel pressured to entertain her aunt (especially if she lives 7.5 hours away and they probably don't see each other much at this point) if she'd come along. It sounds to me like the best option for everybody is that you and your mom take your sister out for a manicure, and enjoy yourselves.

Are students now doing Calc II and III in high school? When I was in high school, even the best math students didn't do more than Calc I.

I was looking at Wayne and Washtenaw.

I've been thinking about this, and I think most of my issue with higher education as an expectation isn't so much that I think there's anything wrong with higher education--I teach at a university, I had an awesome time in college and grad school, I'm a big fan of education--but that there's something very wrong with the false bill of goods were giving students. We continue to make young people believe that if they just go to college, work hard there, get good grades, and graduate, they will go on to find a decent-paying, secure job. If that doesn't happen, then it's because they screwed up somewhere along the line. That is not reality. I was raised with the happy delusion--which was my parents' reality--that if I just worked hard in school, got good grades, stayed out of trouble, and did well in college, I'd get a good job after college and be all set to do at least as well as they'd done. Life hasn't worked out that way, even though I followed all their rules. I cannot tell you how many of my students--most of them first-generation college students--believe that if they just work hard and graduate college (no matter how much debt they have to accrue to do that), they will get a good job and not have to struggle the way their parents did. It breaks my heart, because for many of them that will not happen, not because of anything they do wrong, but because our country is full of people who have done everything right and are still really, really struggling. So I think what I mainly object to is the false promises we are still giving young people.

My husband likes building with Legos and building Hot Wheels car tracks with DS. And having water gun fights. And playing with the walkie-talkies. I can't imagine there's anything odd about a 10 or 11 year old enjoying playing with toys.

I just checked the local CCs website (we are in a city), and there are a number of sections, on the various campuses, of Calc I, Calc II, and Linear Algebra listed. The CC in the county I used to live in offers Calc I-III, Linear Algebra, and Differential Equations. Both are in SE Michigan.

One of my son's best friends is 11 (goes to ps, not special needs). When he comes over, they do 7-year-old kid things (DS's age). They hunt for bugs, they play Legos, they play with Hot Wheels cars, they have water gun fights. I'm sure that when his friend is with other 11yo kids, he does other things, but he really likes playing with my DS and comes over a few times a week. He also likes watching "little kid shows" on TV with my kids. My DS has a few friends who are 3. He loves getting into the sandbox with them and playing.

Right, and that's absolutely a problem. But, again, I don't think the issue is telling girls they're beautiful, but not telling them or being critical of them. My DD, who's a baby now, has really curly hair and very chubby little thighs. And, at 1, everybody finds those two things absolutely adorable and constantly say how cute she is. But, there's a very good chance that, when she grows up, she is going to hate her hair and not think it's beautiful, and if she's still got chubby thighs, she's not going to have people telling her how cute they are. I do want her to have a strong sense that, while appearances aren't the most important thing by far, she is a beautiful person, even if she doesn't see herself in the images that are being held up to her as defining what beautiful is. I think it's easy, as an adult, to say it just doesn't matter. At 33, I really don't care if other people find me attractive or not. But, when you're a girl growing up, it does matter. I think it's a very rare girl who doesn't want to feel like she's beautiful. And I do agree with the posters who've said that if girls don't get that affirmation from the people who love them and who should be giving it to them unconditionally, they'll be far more likely to end up in relationships with boys/men who will tell them that to get what they want. I do think it's far less helpful when it comes from strangers. But I absolutely think that a girl's family and adult friends should let her know that, along with all of her other good qualities, she's beautiful, because she is up against a culture that is going to do everything it can to make her feel like she isn't.

I'm having my third at 33. He may be our last. We're not sure. Our plan is to revisit the issue in 2-3 years, when we'll be 36, and decide if we want to try for one more. I wouldn't have an issue with having a baby later than that, but for us it's more a matter of family size than age. My pregnancies have gotten easier and we've had an easier time getting pregnant with each pregnancy. With my first, at 26, it took about 6 months to get pregnant and it was a difficult pregnancy. This time around, we got pregnant while I was still nursing and we were using condoms, and the pregnancy has been a breeze. I'm assuming that wouldn't keep up indefinitely, but as it stands I'm not too concerned about having a baby any time in my 30s or early 40s, in terms of how I'd feel.

Unless a parent explicitly tells me they don't want their child being fed, I assume it's fine to give snacks. And, unless a parent or child mentions a food allergy to me, I assume it's fine to give them whatever we're eating, particularly if it's a healthy snack. Honestly, I'd be a little put off if a parent got annoyed with me for feeding a snack to their child, especially if that child was asking me for food. I will call, if it's a less healthy snack and the kids are younger. Last week one day we had a huge tub of ice cream, it was really hot, and DS desperately wanted to make sundaes with his friends. I called their mom to make sure that was okay before we did. But, if we're talking about a kid who is 5 or older, I'm going to assume that if it's 2 p.m. and they're asking for food, it's okay for me to give them crackers, cheese, and grapes unless I've been told otherwise by the parent. DS knows that we don't want him snacking near dinner time. For him, if he snacks after about 3, he won't eat. But, if he goes to a friend's house at 3:30, I think it's either on him to not ask or on me to tell the parents I don't want him fed snacks. If I don't tell them, and he goes over and asks for a snack at 4 and gets one, then I'm not going to get annoyed at the parents for it.

If it's near a meal time and a visiting child is hungry, I send them home. It's very common for kids who are over (and my son, too) to start complaining around 4:30 that they are starving. To me, that means it's time to go home, so they can have dinner soon. If it's a reasonable time for a snack, and I'd be feeding my kids snacks anyway, I'll give a portion to any visitors, but I dole out the food. When it's just my kids, I usually let DS decide how much he wants to eat, but when he has friends over, I give out predetermined portions. If they're still hungry after that, they can go home for more food. I don't let DS just snack at random times when friends are over unless he's willing to share with them and we have enough to do so. A lot of it is just that kids don't understand the cost of food. My DS can easily eat through a carton of berries in one sitting, and if he has a friend over, they could go through two or three. I try to offer a few different things at snack time--usually a fruit, a protein (cheese or nuts, usually), and a carb. It seems to get everybody filled up faster and with less food than if I offer only one thing. We do do "junk food" at our house, but I don't give it out that often during snacks. If it's a hot day I might offer an ice pop or a small bowl of ice cream to visitors, but not consistently or else they will ask every single time they come over. If I've just baked something, I'll usually offer a couple of cookies or a muffin. But I try to stick to pretty basic snacks like crackers and cheese, or crackers with peanut butter, or carrot sticks with hummus, and then some sliced fruit.

Yup. I'm 8-1/2 months pregnant and have sciatica (although not as bad as I did with my DD, thank goodness), and every time I pick up my 29-pound DD, it's miserable.

I don't think that complimenting little girls (or little boys, for that matter) on their looks is a problem; I think it's criticizing their looks that is. I think the author ignores that what cuts at girls' self-esteem is the cutting, critical comments people make about their appearance, not being told they are beautiful. In fact, I think girls are going to get such a near-constant barrage of messages that they *aren't* measuring up physically--they aren't pretty enough, thin enough, perfect enough--that telling them they are beautiful just the way they are is probably necessary if they are going to weather that. I also think that physical appearance (as well as intelligence) need to be put in their proper perspective, and that other things--kindness, compassion, helpfulness, hard work, etc.--need to be what's really valued. But, I think it's the negative messages about their appearance that do a number on girls, not the positive ones, and I think most girls could probably stand to have a few more people telling them that they are lovely just the way they are.

How much aid? And it's still there now? I don't know anybody who received aid for an internship from their college, and I was in college 15 years ago. Today, with budgets being slashed, I don't see your average state college or university having much in the way of funds being available for summer internships, and certainly not enough to defray the cost of not working for an entire summer and covering living expenses. I know that the idea that students are in a really, really tough situation even if they do everything right goes against our popular narrative that kids today are the laziest, dumbest generation ever while they have it easier than they ever did. But, that's not reality. In reality, young people today are in a more difficult situation than those of us in our 30s were in when we left college, and a much, much more difficult situation than our parents were in when they did. They are not to blame. It's not their fault that jobs have been disappearing. It's not their fault that older, experienced, well-qualified workers are, out of desperation, taking entry-level jobs that would have gone, in the past, to new grads. It's not their fault that wages have not even come close to keeping pace with increases in housing and education and medical costs. The saddest thing about all of this is that so many young people DO think it's their fault. They were raised to believe that if you work hard, get good grades, and do what you're supposed to, it will all work out for you. You'll come out of college, get a job that pays enough to live on (not lavishly, but enough to get by at first), and things will just keep getting better from there. So, when that doesn't happen, they assume that they messed up somewhere along the line, and we just keep telling them that. When my parents came out of college about 40 years ago, my mom had no debt and my father--who went to a private college and paid for all of it in loans, owed $6,000 total. Today, tuition at that same college is $15K/semester. They paid $200/month in rent for their first apartment, which was a three-bedroom (where I live, three bedrooms go for about $1000/month). Their home cost $29,999, and they sold it a few years ago for $300,000. Now, given that, we'd have to assume that, since they will be paying about 5 times as much in rent, ten times as much if they buy a home, and have about 20 times as much in loans to pay back, salaries much be 5-20 times higher than they were then, right? Obviously that's not the case. In fact, in just real, non-inflation-adjusted dollars, I made less at my first FT job than my dad made at his, and my DH made about the same. Adjusting for inflation, we were making very significantly less. And, it's only gotten worse in the last 15 years. We are shoving young people into a horribly broken and untenable economic situation, and then blaming them for not succeeding.

I use my degree. I teach college class part-time, and I use my education in homeschooling. Do I think it was a waste? No. But, was it a sound financial decision? Absolutely not. I spent 8 years in school, accruing debt, and am making a small fraction of what people I know without any degree are making. My DH has a doctorate and is making less than half of what my BIL who didn't go to college is making, and has a lot of student loan debt to try to pay back. For us, was it a good choice? Probably. We like our life. We like our jobs, we're okay with living in a small apartment and having one car, we don't mind passing up on the things that different choices would have allowed us to have. But, it's also stressful, and having more financial security would be nice.

I said for employment, not grad school. Obviously GPA matters for grad school admissions. I'd say that depends. Performance in a specific class has more to do with recommendations than overall GPA. And, many jobs don't require or even want that sort of recommendation. Again, it matters for grad school, obviously, but not so much for employment. If, as mentioned, you can afford to go a summer or two without earning any money, while being able to cover your living expenses. Internships depend a whole lot less on GPA than on knowing the right people and coming from a family with the financial means to support you. I think we need to admit that much if not most of finding a job is luck. You happen to have your resume arrive at the right time on the right day. Or, you know somebody within the organization. For most students, even if they have a stellar academic record, their resume is going to go into a pile with hundreds of other resumes, and in many cases won't even be looked at. It's nice to think that if you do what you're "supposed to"--go to college, work hard, get good grades--you'll come out and find a job that pays enough for you to live a modest-but-financially-independent life, at least within a few years. Unfortunately, that is just not the reality for many if not most students today, not for lack of hard work or ability, but because of the shape our economy is in and what has been going on with rising costs (especially for education and housing) and stagnating wages.

Yes. In certain fields--public policy, finance, publishing, etc.--it's my understanding that you pretty much cannot get an entry-level job without already having experience, and the way you get that experience is internships. These internships are not only unpaid, but they are also unpaid in some of the most expensive areas of the country (DC for politics/policy, NYC for publishing/finance). Unless you can manage to not only go a summer without earning money, but also afford to pay for living expenses for that summer in an expensive city, you can't do it. Many, many good, qualified, hard-working students cannot manage. And, just to speak to the "they should have thought harder about what field to go into" thing, as you mentioned, if everybody went into engineering, we'd see demand go down and salaries plummet. I know a number of unemployed teachers in MI who went into teaching because, several years ago, there was talk of how the inner city schools were desperate for good teachers. They thought that, by getting a teaching degree, they'd be doing something positive for others and putting themselves in a position to have a job at graduation time. Then, a few years later, they graduated and there were no jobs for them. My husband works right now in a lab in an SLP department. I had several people try to talk me into going into the SLP post-bacc program, because it was a really in-demand field. Within just a few years, they've had to start turning down students left and right, because so many are now trying to get in, and already the available jobs have slowed very considerably. This is all very true. (BTW, it's my understanding that law degrees are, at this point, pretty much a financial disaster. There are so many students coming out with law degrees that it's incredibly difficult to find a good job, and you get into so much debt attaining the degree that it's really shooting yourself in the foot to go that route for most people.) The problem with college debt that nobody is acknowledging is that college costs are rising at a rate much, much, much faster than the rate at which salaries are rising (in fact, since the early 80s, we've seen average wages stagnate and even drop). As an example, the (public) university where I work is having a 6.9% tuition increase this year. And, that's getting off pretty easy. Several other public universities in the state are having 12% tuition hikes. Do you know anybody who has had a 7%, much less 12%, salary hike this year? Are the wages for entry level jobs going up 7-12% each year? Of course not. Many people I know haven't seen a raise in a few years, and several people I know have taken pay cuts. So we have students taking on student loan debt, out of necessity, that is not being matched by an increase in the wages they can expect to earn--if they are lucky enough to find a job--upon graduation. It's a horrible situation these young people are caught up in.

:iagree: When I was growing up, it was simply expected that I was going to college. There was no choice in the matter. I wouldn't say that I thought it was stupid not to go to college, but the basic message I received was that, if you could go to college--if you were smart enough and had good enough grades--then you did, period. DH and I--who both work in academia--have decided that we will not be pushing our children to attend college unless it's the right path for them. We won't discourage it, but if they don't want to attend, we won't force the issue. Considering that everybody we know who didn't go to college is far better off financially--making significantly more money, dealing with much less debt (we've got an insane amount of student loan debt between us, and we only ever attended public universities)--than we our with our two master's and doctorate between us, we're not going to assume it's the most practical choice for everybody.

At 4, I wouldn't worry about defining what a sentence is. I'd just point out that sentences start with capital letters and end with a punctuation mark. I'm pretty sure DS knew that long before I introduced the formal definition of a sentence, and he had a pretty good idea of what a sentence was, and could form a complete sentence if asked, before I formally defined it for him, just from knowing what sentences looked like and then generalizing about them. I'm not sure a 4 year old would be able to get the idea of a sentence being a complete thought. I know that, even in first grade, DS found that concept a bit confusing.

This seems massively unfair to me. There was just a big study done in Michigan that found that a single person needs about $30K to make ends meet. I know very, very few young people living lavish lifestyles. I also know very few who are making enough to be financially independent, much less financially secure. I'm not sure why we're so unwilling to admit that our current economic situation has screwed over young people more than any other group. College costs have risen and risen for decades, while salaries have stagnated. If that wasn't bad enough, we've now got college grads coming out unable to find jobs, not because they are lazy or unwilling, but because the jobs simply are not there. A good study was done by Rutgers (where I did my undergrad). You can read the full PDF here. The sad thing is how many young people are blaming themselves. I guess they are getting our message to them loud and clear.