Upper & Upper Middle-Class Parents - Essential Knowledge? - Page 12

[nstewart]

Originally Posted by littlest birds 

It depends on where you are trying to get.  This doesn't seem to be about trying to be a better person.  The OP is new money and wants her children to grow up comfortable in certain social circles.  This is separate from learning to be a nice confident person or other such things and OBVIOUSLY not more important.  Those social skills and cultural knowledge are okay to be concerned with in addition to other aspects of teaching one's children. 

I agree that the cultural knowledge OP is referring to is also nice to have and ok to teach kids (although I think I have different ideas than OP about what those things would be, to each their own).  What I am getting at is that if you don't have basic interpersonal skills then the cultural knowlege and other "assets" won't do you much good as you just won't be invited to the party, so to speak.  They just won't get you anywhere if you are kept on the "outside" because people just don't want to be around you. 

[FarmerBeth]

Valued skills are more dependent upon overall culture than income.  Living in a rural location, I can positively say that those in the upper class bracket in the country value quite different skills than upper class urbanites.  Also, while I realize we are talking about socioeconomic class and not purely income, people who have earned their income as entrepreneurs or in supposedly blue collar trades also have different values than people earn their money in careers that typically involve post graduate education.  My brother would qualify in this income bracket.  He works in upper management in a large engineering and construction firm and his background is purely community college followed by apprenticing, journeyman, etc route available to carpenters.  My husband used to work in the oil industry and the welders he was acquainted with (especially those qualified in underground welding) made significant income easily in this range. 

I think the important thing for those in the upper income classes to remember is that they have an opportunity to give their children a very broad exposure to experiences.  A range of experiences (not so much which ones in particular) give one more to fall back on as an adult.  Some experiences (like extensive travel, certain sports, music lessons) are easier to give children if you have a higher income, so why not use the opportunity in a varied way according to the family's personal interests?

Other than that, teaching good financial skills, clear communication, practical skills, and the value of hard work are good skills for anyone to learn.

[Imakcerka]

For all those interested learning a language is actually really easy. Once I learned one... it was not hard to pick up another. Most people I know are proficient in more than one other non native language. All it takes is want.

As for the rest of it Meh... I don't care

[CatsCradle]

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

For all those interested learning a language is actually really easy. Once I learned one... it was not hard to pick up another. Most people I know are proficient in more than one other non native language. All it takes is want.
As for the rest of it Meh... I don't care

I agree, Imakcerka.  I studied an extensive amount of French but discovered that it really helped me in Spanish and Italian too (although I can only get by in those two languages for survival purposes...like:  I want water, please, or, where's the train station).  

I did take modern Hebrew back in the day and while not the most practical language in the world, it was very beneficial for me, in my youth, to learn to read a different visuals besides my native alphabet.  I was shut out of Russian class in the early '80's at my university, but later I found that they canceled the class and I think it was an anti-communist thingy.  Wish I had learned to speak Russian because it is a huge demographic where I live. 

I actually think language acquisition is a fairly utilitarian thing.  Maybe in the old days, when people tended to be isolated in their own native cultures and didn't have the opportunity to travel or learn anything above rudimentary stuff, did language acquisition reside in the world of the elite.  Not so much anymore.  I live in a neighborhood where at least five non-English languages are spoken (Arabic, Italian, Spanish, Russian and Mandarin) and exposure is par for the course.  Kids pick up on it.  My DD picks up on it.  It's not hooty-flalooty.  It's just life as we know it.  

[nstewart]

Originally Posted by Imakcerka 

For all those interested learning a language is actually really easy. Once I learned one... it was not hard to pick up another. Most people I know are proficient in more than one other non native language. All it takes is want.
As for the rest of it Meh... I don't care

And opportunity to use the 2nd languange. 

Seems like where you are there are Spanish and English speakers, based on other threads?  Where I am, 95% of the population I know (recognizing that there are other communities in my city that speak other languages) speak English only.  So, even though I took Spanish for 2 years of Uni, other than traveling to Spain where my skills improved drastically in only 3 weeks, I have had very little opportunity to practice my Spanish in the last 7 years (despite the fact that my Tia, although not a blood relative, speaks spanish as a first language and I do practise with her when I can).  DHs father speaks French as a first language and DH attended school in French  until grade 9, but spoke
English at home as his mom doesn't speak French.  As an adult, he's had little opportunity to use it and his French is attrocious.  His brother, who speaks French often due to his work, is still fluent.  Opportunity is key, although I recognize if your desire is strong enough it's likely those opportunities could be created.  It is easier living some places than others, however.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by LynnS6 

OK -- so here's a type of cultural knowledge that I missed completely because I'm an nerdy academic who just didn't care to party. And my parents were no help either. I know very little slang related to marijuana or other drugs. I just don't. And I really don't care to learn. Just like I really don't care enough about wine to learn. But, it does leave me out of a whole bunch of conversations!

I'm not sure how much this is related to one's general drug knowledge. I smoked pot daily through my last two years of high school, and a little while afterwards. My ex and most of our friends were potheads, to one degree or another. I've been around potheads a lot, and was one for a while. And, I'd never heard of the 4:20 thing until I came across it (quite randomly) online. Imentioned it to a woman I know and she was like, "oh, yeah - that's been around for a while". To the best of my knowledge, she's never smoked even a single joint, and she certainly doesn't have a lot of pothead friends. It was just something she came across somewhere, the same way I did.

[Amys1st]

Well I go away from this board for 48 hrs and look what happens!

I am right there at the 6 figure. I am drinking a glass of wine as I type this. Why? Because it was left in the  fridge, and just enough to enjoy. BTW, this wine, is white and I paid about $6 for it. I bought it because it was on sale, I needed some for a recipe that was italian and I cannot pronounce it either nor could I when I went to Italy. LOL. But DH is working late (Hell how do you think we have this $$$) and the kids are watching a dvd.

The  best tasting wine I have found is the one that you open and drink with close friends or family. Everyone is happy and enjoying the wine, the meal, or whatever. I have done this with 3 buck chuck (although I had a huge headache in the am) and very expensive wines as well. But I cannot recall the other names but I can recall the times drinking them and what a great occasion it was, because of the company, not the wine. Anyone who has to take a course on food and wine to talk to people or be friends, you dont want  to be friends let alone break bread with those types.

I should add, DH and I are huge foodies and drink snobs. But that is our thing and we go to your house for the pleasure of YOUR company and your hospitality. So if you serve  up the 3 buck chuck, hell pour me a glass and we will have a nice time! I  will love whatever you are excited about because its about  you not your stuff.

[AbbyGrant]

Originally Posted by CatsCradle 

I live in a neighborhood where at least five non-English languages are spoken (Arabic, Italian, Spanish, Russian and Mandarin) and exposure is par for the course.  Kids pick up on it.  My DD picks up on it.  It's not hooty-flalooty.  It's just life as we know it.  

Reading your posts always makes me wish I could raise my kids in New York.  

[FarmerBeth]

Originally Posted by nstewart 

And opportunity to use the 2nd languange. 

Seems like where you are there are Spanish and English speakers, based on other threads?  Where I am, 95% of the population I know (recognizing that there are other communities in my city that speak other languages) speak English only.  So, even though I took Spanish for 2 years of Uni, other than traveling to Spain where my skills improved drastically in only 3 weeks, I have had very little opportunity to practice my Spanish in the last 7 years (despite the fact that my Tia, although not a blood relative, speaks spanish as a first language and I do practise with her when I can).  DHs father speaks French as a first language and DH attended school in French  until grade 9, but spoke
English at home as his mom doesn't speak French.  As an adult, he's had little opportunity to use it and his French is attrocious.  His brother, who speaks French often due to his work, is still fluent.  Opportunity is key, although I recognize if your desire is strong enough it's likely those opportunities could be created.  It is easier living some places than others, however.

It would come back quickly for your husband if he were to be exposed again.  I grew up in a bilingual (French and English) household, schooled in French, and then was mostly only around English speakers for a good 15 years.  My French was very rusty, but now that I'm living in a more bilingual region again (and some other languages, besides) it has come back quickly.  Also, if you have more than one language, not only do you have more exposure to patterns within language families (reading Italian is easy if you speak French, German and English are similar, etc), but you also learn the steps to acquiring a new language (learning how to learn so to speak).  I think the learning of other languages is a wonderful, life broadening skill that extends beyond any sort of class value.  We don't live in a population with many Asians, but my daughter had an opportunity to learn some Korean this last year from a new Canadian and I thought it was wonderful all of the interest shown by the many students who opted to take Korean as an extra-curricular.  I don't care if she gets to use it, it's great she's learning about another language and culture.

[nstewart]

Originally Posted by FarmerBeth 

It would come back quickly for your husband if he were to be exposed again.  I grew up in a bilingual (French and English) household, schooled in French, and then was mostly only around English speakers for a good 15 years.  My French was very rusty, but now that I'm living in a more bilingual region again (and some other languages, besides) it has come back quickly.  Also, if you have more than one language, not only do you have more exposure to patterns within language families (reading Italian is easy if you speak French, German and English are similar, etc), but you also learn the steps to acquiring a new language (learning how to learn so to speak).  I think the learning of other languages is a wonderful, life broadening skill that extends beyond any sort of class value.  We don't live in a population with many Asians, but my daughter had an opportunity to learn some Korean this last year from a new Canadian and I thought it was wonderful all of the interest shown by the many students who opted to take Korean as an extra-curricular.  I don't care if she gets to use it, it's great she's learning about another language and culture.

Yes, I absolutely agree with this.  I know it would come back fast for him.  I also took French, was in French Immersion for 2 years but as neither of my parents speak any French I was moved into English and took French as a second language until grade 12 (really, taking it as a second language you barely learn passable French, IMO).  I still understand a lot of it, but can't reply.  I also think this is why I picked up Spanish relatively easily, I knew the basic grammer rules (long since forgotten now!).  I think learning a second language is an amazing opportunity not just for the skill but because of the neural pathways created which facilitate learning other skills as well.  I hope to have DS attend French Immersion when he's enrolled in school.  Still, to keep a language you need to use it.
 

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by VisionaryMom 
 I live in a place that still has cotillions. I could sign my kids up for those classes, but I'd prefer to teach them throughout their childhoods. 

I think you are looking at this from a wonky perspective. If you live some place that has cotillions, you want your children to learn the skills taught at cotillion, and you can afford cotillion (and the wardrobe that goes along with it), then just sign them up for it. What's stopping you?

Cotillion teaches a certain set of social skills and provides practice with those skills. There's NO WAY for any parent to provide the exact same thing with just their family, which is why some families mess with cotillion. You can only practice that stuff with a group.

Second, you can't catch it because you don't know it. (If I didn't know how to swim, would my kids most likely turn out to be better swimmers if I tried to figure it out and teach them myself, or if I just hired a swim instructor?)

There are lots of things we do with our families and get the hang of, but when people really want to hone those skills, they get real teachers, coaches, and people to practice with. The more money the parents have, the more true this becomes.

To go back to my swimming example, we've spent lots of time in water as a family, but the reason my kids can kick a$$ across a pool is because they swam on a team with great coaches. If you want your kids to learn something (and they are at least open to it) find the best teachers you can.

[Linda on the move]

movie this thread most reminds me of --- Pride and Prejudice.

The scene were several characters are describing the traits of an "accomplished young woman." There's a long list with everything from playing the piano and singing and drawing to speaking "all the modern languages."  Elizabeth Bennet says she's never met such a creature, but says she would be  "very fearsome to behold."

[Smithie]

This is one of the most classicist posts I have seen in a long time.

Grammar and proofreading, OP. Teach your children not to make unintentional puns when they are trying to lay the smake down. 

But the hilarity inspires a serious point - give your children a very broad and thorough classical education if you want them to be socially mobile and/or to enrich the modest social stratum which they may inhabit in adulthood. I am surrounded by homeschoolers (many of who are poor by any definition, it truly runs the gamut socioeconomically) who have observed that while functional literacy is holding steady in our society (I can read and understand a menu, a job application, and a traffic ticket), actual literacy (I can read and understand Shakespeare, the KJV, and my AP Biology textbook) is sharply declining in public schools. You know where actual literacy is NOT permitted to decline? Exeter, Choate, and the Boston Latin School. Most people can't pay for that kind of secondary education, but you can make good headway into it with some judicious afterschooling and academic summer programs, even if homeschooling is not for you.

Have your kids study Latin and ancient literature. Classicists, as opposed to classists, have been successfully mingling with rich folks for quite some time. And the mental training confers many other benefits unrelated to social mobility. 

[crimsonandclover]

This thread reminds me of reading "The Social Animal", by David Brooks.  He talks about the lack of correlation of money to happiness, and pulls dozens of interesting surveys to prove his point.  Basically, the happiest people are the ones who are socially and intimately connected.  In fact, people who join a club that meets monthly report more long term happiness over those who double their income the same year.  Regarding the upper classes, and I quote:

"Many members of this class, like many Americans generally, have a vague sense that their lives have been distorted by a giant cultural bias. They live in a society that prizes the development of career skills but is inarticulate when it comes to the things that matter most. The young achievers are tutored in every soccer technique and calculus problem, but when it comes to their most important decisions—whom to marry and whom to befriend, what to love and what to despise—they are on their own. Nor, for all their striving, do they understand the qualities that lead to the highest achievement. Intelligence, academic performance, and prestigious schools don’t correlate well with fulfillment, or even with outstanding accomplishment. The traits that do make a difference are poorly understood, and can’t be taught in a classroom, no matter what the tuition: the ability to understand and inspire people; to read situations and discern the underlying patterns; to build trusting relationships; to recognize and correct one’s shortcomings; to imagine alternate futures. In short, these achievers have a sense that they are shallower then they need to be".

Just something to think about.  Your children might benefit more from urging them to follow their interests and social activities than they may benefit from getting to ride with Barack Obama on a customized dolphin chariot or learning to order caramelized pork belly with a vanilla bean arugula reduction in French AND Sanskrit.  But that's just my opinion.

[pianojazzgirl]

Very interesting.

And I'm LMAO @

getting to ride with Barack Obama on a customized dolphin chariot or learning to order caramelized pork belly with a vanilla bean arugula reduction in French AND Sanskrit

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Smithie 

I am surrounded by homeschoolers (many of who are poor by any definition, it truly runs the gamut socioeconomically) who have observed that while functional literacy is holding steady in our society (I can read and understand a menu, a job application, and a traffic ticket), actual literacy (I can read and understand Shakespeare, the KJV, and my AP Biology textbook) is sharply declining in public schools.

Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. Shakespeare. I'm so sick of Shakespeare. I'm functionally literate, but I'm apparently not actually literate. I don't understand large chunks of Shakespeare, without a guide. I have no interest in understanding Shakespeare. Maybe, if I hadn't had his work crammed down my throat in the most tedious fashion possible as part of my "education", I'd be able to find the merit in his work, but it bored me to tears. Sure - he had insight into humanity. So do hundreds of other authors. If we're concerned about literacy in English, maybe there should be more focus on authors who wrote in something resembling the English language that we actually speak.

Sorry - you hit a nerve. Shakespeare isn't about "actual literacy". He's about the upper class equivalent of street cred. Not wanting to put down my book to dig out a Shakespeare study guide doesn't make me illiterate.

[rubidoux]

Lisa, I'm with you on Shakespeare and I don't even know what the KJV is.    I've done fairly well for myself considering my actual illiteracy, though.  

[CatsCradle]

Originally Posted by rubidoux 

Lisa, I'm with you on Shakespeare and I don't even know what the KJV is.    I've done fairly well for myself considering my actual illiteracy, though.  

I think KJV is "King James Version" (of the Bible).  I agree with Lisa and while I think that literature can be a tool for becoming literate, I don't think that Shakespeare, Chaucer, biology textbooks or the Bible are necessarily markers for determining literacy.  Chaucer (just using that as an example because I had to read it in high school) and Shakespeare were written in a form of English that most of us don't practice anymore.  Plus, there is an element of poetry that dominates both those authors' work and I think that there has to be learned appreciation for that type of poetry and style of writing too.  Regarding biology books:  sure, I might be able to pick one up and pronounce all the words, but do I understand what I'm reading?  Probably not, unless I have learned the terms of biology - so there is another level of learning there that has less to with literacy itself and more to do with acquisition of knowledge particular to a certain subject.  Am I making sense? 
 

[Smithie]

I don't snuggle up in front of a roaring fire with Hamlet, either.  But yes, I can understand most of the vocabulary and allusions, because I had a rigorous liberal arts education. "Upper class street cred?" Yup. The OP is looking for that, after all. But it's not just that - so many great authors and historians and politicians learned to read on the KJV and took their rhetorical cues from that Great Books syllabus, and I understand their work more deeply because I can follow their allusions. 

As for the AP Biology textbook, "literacy" doesn't just refer to reading fluency. (That's "functional literacy," which is not an insult, BTW.) Educated people who've completed their secondary schooling need to possess sufficient scientific literacy to read books like that and understand them. That one's less of a yuppie party trick, and more of requirement for full citizenship in the modern world, where you pretty much need that level of scientific literacy to figure out what groceries to buy. Now, figuring out what groceries to buy and then hooking your friends up with new sources - THAT'S a yuppie party trick, and also a nice thing MDCers and IRL friends to do for each other with no pretensions to yuppiness. Context is all. 

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by CatsCradle 

I think KJV is "King James Version" (of the Bible).  I agree with Lisa and while I think that literature can be a tool for becoming literate, I don't think that Shakespeare, Chaucer, biology textbooks or the Bible are necessarily markers for determining literacy.  Chaucer (just using that as an example because I had to read it in high school) and Shakespeare were written in a form of English that most of us don't practice anymore.  Plus, there is an element of poetry that dominates both those authors' work and I think that there has to be learned appreciation for that type of poetry and style of writing too.  Regarding biology books:  sure, I might be able to pick one up and pronounce all the words, but do I understand what I'm reading?  Probably not, unless I have learned the terms of biology - so there is another level of learning there that has less to with literacy itself and more to do with acquisition of knowledge particular to a certain subject.  Am I making sense? 
 

You're making sense to me, at least. :)

I don't read a lot of "literature", if we're using that term the way it's usually used. But, for many, many years, I read a minimum of five books a week, and frequently as many as ten. Occasionally, I re-read, but the majority of those books were first reads. They were predominantly science fiction, and included a lot of "hard" SF.  That might not be the equivalent of an AP Biology textbook, but those books definitely required an ability to really read, understand what I was reading, and work through complicated, difficult, technical passages. The sociological speculation that's prevalent in SF also requires good comprehension, and at least some ability to think about what one is reading. I haven't read the KJV (keep thinking I should, but I don't own one, and never quite get around to it), and I've only read a bit of Shakespeare, and no Chaucer. It really bugs me when people use that sort of thing as a measuring stick for "actual literacy". I'm not terribly well-educated, especially in a formal sense, but I don't think anyone could claim that I'm not literate, yk?