Marketing and advertising should also pay close attention to changes in language use. Several studies using the Google Books database show language has become more self-focused and less communal. One of the biggest increases was in the use of you and other second-person pronouns. Individualistic words such as unique and personalize also increased, as did the use of female pronouns. If you want to market to this generation, you need to speak their language, and this huge database is one of the fastest ways to see what that language is.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Like most of GenX and GenMe, I am skeptical that simply calling for change will actually change anything. But three changes would make an enormous difference in the lives of Generation Me and the generations who follow. One will cost no money and might even save money; another may cost universities a small amount but will greatly benefit their students; and the last will vary in cost but in the long run might pay for itself.
Ditch the Self-Esteem Movement and the Unrealistic Aphorisms
It is not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.
—Batman Begins
The first change we must make is to abandon the obsession with self-esteem. Instead of creating well-adjusted, happy children, the self-esteem movement has created an army of little narcissists. Schools should eliminate self-esteem programs. It does not do any good for a child to hear that he or she is “special” or to “win” a trophy just for participating. Decades of research have shown that high self-esteem does not cause good grades or good behavior. So the programs are not doing any good. What’s more, they may actually be harming some kids by making them too self-centered. Praise based on nothing teaches only an inflated ego. The purpose of school is for children to learn, not for them to feel good about themselves all the time.
Another facet of this movement says that teachers should not correct children’s mistakes, lest this hurt their self-esteem. This is misguided: children learn by having their mistakes corrected, and their self-esteem is hurt when they later find out that they’ve been doing something wrong for years and aren’t prepared. “We are in danger of producing individuals who are expert at knowing how they feel rather than educated individuals who know how to think,” writes education professor Maureen Stout. Children will feel good about themselves—and rightly so—when they develop real skills and learn something. Children also need to learn how to deal with criticism, in preparation for the inevitable day when it is not delivered as gently as you—or they—would like. We are doing young people an enormous disservice by sending them into an increasingly competitive world thinking they will be praised for substandard work. It is too late to change this for adult GenMe’ers, who are now struggling to succeed in the workplace after having their self-esteem boosted throughout their childhoods. But schools can still make these changes for future generations.
Fortunately, most schools do still correct children’s mistakes. However, the majority of schools consider it their mission to cultivate children’s self-esteem, even though decades of research make clear that this is a waste of time. Some schools say instead that they aim to help each child cultivate his or her unique skills and abilities. This is fine as long as that still means that all kids learn math, and that kids still learn that people differ in their talents. There is nothing wrong with being good at some things and not others—that’s life.
Many schools have stopped publishing the honor roll since kids who don’t make the list might “feel bad.” But feeling bad can be good; it can motivate hard work. The Japanese have known this for ages, which is why Japanese kids often say they’re no good at something, work hard, and then blow American kids out of the water on international tests. We have to get away from the notion that negative self-feelings are to be avoided at all costs. There is no need to shelter kids from differences in abilities among people; they’re going to encounter this in college or the workplace soon enough anyway. We have to be clear, especially with young children, that doing badly does not mean you should give up. It means you should work at it more.
Parenting magazines should stop insisting that a parent’s most important duty is to raise a child who “likes herself.” As any parent of a two-year-old can tell you, most kids like themselves just fine—and make the demands to prove it. Even as children grow older, most are confident and self-assured. A small percentage of kids might need extra encouragement, but a much larger percentage will believe you if you say they are the best kids in the world. Children do not need to be sheltered from failure. “We do not need to completely shield our children from pain, discomfort, and unhappiness,” advises the sane book The Over-Scheduled Child. “When life undoes all that hard work, as real life invariably must, our carefully ‘shielded’ children may not have developed the tools they need to cope with adversity.” If children are always praised and always get what they want, they may find it difficult to overcome challenges as adults. “The risk of overindulgence is self-centeredness and self-absorption, and that’s a mental health risk,” says psychologist William Damon.
It’s also time to do away with trophies for participation. Life requires more than just showing up. I like Ashley Merryman’s advice in the New York Times: “If I were a [Little League] baseball coach, I would announce at the first meeting that there would only be three awards: Best Overall, Most Improved, and Best Sportsmanship. Then I’d hand the kids a list of things they’d have to do to earn one of those trophies. They would know from the get-go that excellence, improvement, character and persistence were valued.” Merryman is right: we should reward performance, effort, and consideration for others, not mere participation. Why try hard and improve when you’re going to get the trophy anyway? Nor is this good preparation for the rest of life. Many in GenMe are angry that they were so ill-prepared for the tough job market and today’s harsh economic realities. We can prepare the next generation better by banishing the idea that simply participating is good enough.
Much of the “self-esteem movement” encourages narcissism, the belief that one is better and more important than anyone else. Narcissism is linked to aggression and poor relationships with others. Somehow we’ve developed the notion that it’s not okay to have a few insecurities, but it is okay to think you’re the greatest and everyone else should get out of your way. Instead, children should learn to have empathy and respect for others. Eventually, children will learn that the world does not revolve around them. As an added bonus, children who are sensitive to others’ needs get along better with their peers and thus enjoy all of the benefits that come with good friendships. Children are naturally self-centered; growing up is the process of learning how to empathize with other people.
Instead of children doing “All about Me” projects, or writing “commercials” advertising themselves, perhaps they could learn about another child in the class. What is her life like? What are her beliefs, and why does she have them? What has she learned from her experiences? Children would learn a lot more from this type of project and might also develop empathy.
Psychologist Roy Baumeister argues that parents and teachers should focus on teaching self-control instead of self-esteem. Children who learn how to persevere at a difficult task and delay rewards until a later time grow up to accomplish much more than children who do not have these skills. Children should be rewarded for good behavior, not indulged when they whine or get upset. Kids who learn to control their emotions and actions will reap the benefits for years to come. Their actions are more important than their feelings about themselves.
We also need to stop talking in unrealistic platitudes, and this goes for teachers, parents, and Hollywood screenwriters alike. We must stop telling children, “You can be anything you want to be” or “You should never give up on your dreams.” Why? Because both of these statements are patently untrue. Not everyone is good at what he would like to do, and even if he is, the profession might be competitive and full of talented people. Adults cannot follow their dreams all the time, but
must deal with the practical matters of getting a job that pays the bills. It’s fine to tell kids to try to find a profession that they enjoy, but talk of “dreams” and being “anything you want” creates unrealistic expectations that are bound to disappoint. We’re raising idealistic children who expect the world and can’t even buy a condo, who believe that every job will be fulfilling and then can’t even find a boring one. It’s especially tempting to utter these aphorisms to smart and talented kids, but they especially need to realize that it will still take a lot of hard work and luck to make it—lots and lots of smart people don’t get into the law school of their choice or get their dream job. Yes, your talent will open up more possibilities, but it doesn’t mean that you will be able to do anything you want to do. No one is truly, objectively good at everything.
Not only do these phrases create unrealistic expectations, but they can also give kids the idea that the world is an ever-expanding, scarily large universe of possibilities. Author Chris Colin quotes his classmate Lesley Kato, who says, “I was told, growing up, that I could do whatever I wanted, and I fully believed I could. And therefore I had no idea what to do.”
Instead, children should learn that growing up is a gradual process of learning what you’re good at and what you’re not. Then they have to figure out how to apply that to a career. Some talents aren’t going to lead to a paying job, and others might. It’s also useful to consider skills in relation to other people—what do you do better than most others? (Again, ignore the empty self-esteem proposition that you shouldn’t “compare yourself to others”—everyone else will, so you might as well start now.)
These skills also need to be viewed through a realistic lens. Even the extremely skilled baseball player is unlikely to make it to the major leagues. The talented actor probably won’t become a movie star. Few young people realize how difficult it is to get into med school or become a corporate executive. This doesn’t mean that young people should be discouraged from pursuing these professions, but that they should be prepared for how difficult it might be.
Another aphorism that should be chucked is “You must love yourself before you love others.” A mountain of research shows that people who have good relationships with other people are happier and less depressed—and have higher self-esteem. The idea that self-esteem rises fully formed and perfect from inside the individual is a complete myth. We develop our sense of ourselves primarily from interacting with others. There is nothing wrong with this. Not only that, but narcissists—people who really love themselves—are horrible relationship partners. Self-centered people are rarely fun to be around, and we all know this. So why do we keep telling people to love themselves first before others? Beats me. An aphorism that makes a lot more sense, to modernize John Donne, is “No one is an island.”
Provide Better Career Counseling for Young People
The book The Ambitious Generation was subtitled America’s Teenagers, Motivated but Directionless. That’s because young people are usually not told how to achieve their goals. As the book documents, many parents focus on their kids’ getting into the “best” college, not the college that is best for the young person and his or her career goals. In some fields, doing internships and developing contacts are key; in others, college grades count. Many teens are focused on a goal but have no idea how to achieve it; parents and counselors can help them take the practical steps toward reaching their goals. Many books and websites detail some of this “insider” knowledge.
Not every teen should be encouraged to go to college. Many high-paying and rewarding occupations do not require a college degree. Just to name a few—plumbers, auto mechanics, carpenters, and electricians make excellent money. Young people who enjoy mechanical things and have little interest in college should not be browbeaten into going. If they learn a skilled trade, they’ll often be making more money than a college graduate of the same age. A cultural value shift is also in order. College-educated people should consciously reconsider their attitudes toward skilled trades and give them the respect they deserve. It should not be an embarrassment to be without a college degree if you’re in a job that requires skills not taught in college.
Students who do go to college need more career direction. Most college students are ill-equipped to choose a profession and receive little guidance during their four years at school. As noted in the marketing section above, many companies have stepped in to fill the gap with job-search services. Placement offices at universities have a tough job, and students often need more help than they can provide.
One way to solve this is to start early by teaching students about the career paths in their field. About 10 years ago, our psychology department at San Diego State began requiring a one-credit class for psychology majors called Academic and Career Opportunities in Psychology. Many older faculty members were against requiring this course, as it does not teach psychology per se. My younger peers on the faculty thought it was a great idea, and so do I. I would go further: every college student should take a class like this in her major, preferably during sophomore year. Job placement offices at colleges can only spend so much time with any one student, and often students arrive there without any clear idea of what kind of job they would like. Career-path classes organized by major can give students the information they need to help decide on a profession. In the SDSU course, students learn about career opportunities and graduate schools and get a primer on job-search skills. Students also get help developing an educational plan that will help them reach their goals.
Ideally, these classes should feature guest appearances by alumni who can give students a view of what it’s like to work in a specific profession and perhaps provide a useful networking contact. In general, alumni should have more opportunities to visit campus and give advice and mentoring to young people.
Create More Support for Working Parents
In the coming years, two of the greatest challenges for young people will be getting health care and child care. Both eat up increasingly large chunks of young families’ incomes. The debate over nationalized health care is beyond the scope of this book.
Child care, on the other hand, is relatively simple: most mothers work, and their kids need care. Yet there is no nationalized system, and young families often have few choices; good care is expensive, and even mediocre care is hard to find and costly. Millions of people deal with this every day. American parents are going broke trying to pay the mortgage and the child-care bill. One out of four children lives below the poverty level in the United States today, and nearly 1 out of 2 lives in a family making less than double the poverty cutoff (about $47,000 a year for a family of four). Even the middle-class families making more than this struggle to pay for care for their children.
So why isn’t anything being done about this? Why is the United States one of the few industrialized nations without mandatory paid maternity leave or state-sponsored day care? Why aren’t the problems of young families—the expense of day care, the cost of housing, the lack of good choices—at the forefront of politicians’ agendas, instead of Social Security and prescription drugs?
It’s at least partially because young people have not put them there. Two of GenMe’s most prominent characteristics are individualism and lack of political engagement. Confidence in government has reached an all-time low. Many don’t vote, and many don’t think political action will do any good. GenMe thinks everything is up to the individual, even though millions are experiencing the same problems at the same time. GenX and GenMe are so uncomfortable with group action that we have seemingly thrown in the towel for getting back any of our tax dollars. If older Americans faced a problem that made their checkbooks impossible to balance, they’d take political action and get results. In Perfect Madness, Judith Warner writes, “There is right now no widespread feeling of social responsibility—for children, for families, for anyone, really—and so [young parents] must take everything onto themselves. And because they can’t, humanly, take everything onto thems
elves, they simply go nuts.”
Ever since large numbers of mothers went to work in the 1970s, Americans have had their collective heads in the sand about day care. Our workplaces and much of the rest of our lives are still structured as if we all had wives at home. Yet couples in which the husband works and the wife doesn’t are only 18% of young marrieds. Even that minority would benefit from many of the changes suggested to improve things for working parents, such as paid parental leave, paid sick leave, and state-sponsored preschool. It is as close to bulletproof as a political issue gets: a recent poll found that 60% of registered Republicans and 84% of registered Democrats supported a proposal to fund public preschool by raising the federal tax on tobacco. Another poll found that 74% of Americans support mandating paid sick leave, and 61% supported a requirement for paid maternity leave. Generation Me was the most likely to support these policies.
Imagine getting into your time machine and seeing this: Kids playing together at a day care completely free of cost to their parents, with children learning about colors and shapes and letters while their parents work. And when mom or dad swings by to pick up the kids, there is a hot meal waiting to take home. Unrealistic? No, because that time machine didn’t zip you into the future; it transported you to the past. From 1943 to 1945, the US government ran child-care centers for women who worked in war-related industries, hot meals and all. Imagine what we could do now in the time of such newfangled devices as the copy machine, the ballpoint pen, and the microwave oven.
Actually we don’t even need to imagine it; the US government already subsidizes day care for hundreds of thousands of children right now: the children of military personnel. Far from being sterile institutions, these day cares are, author Ann Crittenden reports, extremely well-run and stimulating for children. Government child care sounds scary to some, but the day care enjoyed by these military kids sounds more like heaven. If only we didn’t have to join the army to get it.
Generation Me--Revised and Updated Page 31
