Ridiculous. Sorry.

After reading all the above it looks like the most important time to be a stay at home mom or dad would be the teen years (in today's world).

I am very surprised to hear that any kindergartener is in diapers, as every state BOE has rules about what teachers can and cannot do--- and changing diapers is one of them. In our state kids cannot enter the state funded preschool (age four) unless they are trained, and every private nursery we ever looked at also required kids above the two year old class to be trained. The twos were generally at "school" only a few hours at a time and the parent was summoned if there was a diaper issue.

Unless those children have disabilities not known to the teacher,my guess is that their parents are afraid the kids will have an accident at school and as a precaution theyre wearing pull ups. That's a little different.

"Myself as well as several of my friends were married by age 20, and had a baby shortly thereafter. Being from a very small town, we never thought too much about college, but were happy having a husband who went to a job every day and earned enough so we could stay home with the baby, and subsequent children. "

That's one way to force people to grow up in a hurry, but surely you would not advocate that for everyone, especially nowadays?

"Myself as well as several of my friends were married by age 20, and had a baby shortly thereafter. Being from a very small town, we never thought too much about college, but were happy having a husband who went to a job every day and earned enough so we could stay home with the baby, and subsequent children. "

That's one way to force people to grow up in a hurry, but surely you would not advocate that for everyone, especially nowadays?

And surely you're not suggesting she is? I certainly hope not because that would really be reading into something that just isn't there.

Lukki, she said her point was that kids nowadays would not be responsible enough to do that. My point is that kids that age should not need or have to be responsible in that way. To then compare an entire cohort of young people to Casey Anthony is just a bit of a stretch.

For years old people have been lamenting about "kids today," and yet the world continues to survive and progress.

.... Kids! You can talk and talk till your face is blue!
Kids! But they still just do what they want to do!
Why can't they be like we were,
Perfect in every way?
What's the matter with kids today?

from Bye, Bye, Birdie 1963

Here is a link that might be useful: What's the Matter With Kids Today?

Like I doubt very seriously that she is even coming close to suggesting that so like I said, I think you're just reading something into it that isn't there.

So maybe I need to clarify~it's just my opinion that kids today could never handle the responsibility cause most that I see are pretty self centered and immature. So no, not a recommendation for young people today and going to school *needs* to be a priority. If kids are getting bad grades and parents are still allowing them a lot of freedom, that's a problem.

As for my reference to Anthony, it's the extreme as to what a young person *might* do when life is not as they want it to be. Let's face it, with many of these youngsters who have babies, it's the grandparents who end up raising the children, which wasn't the case when I was growing up.

"The good old days are gone-- and good riddance to them. Your point about infantilizing 25 year olds is well-taken, but there's a boatload of difference between a petulant young adult and a twelve year old. I am not so sure that leaving a girl of 12 alone to care for a houseful of siblings is a very good idea whenever it happened." kswl, apparenty you didn't live in the "happy days" era, cause if you did, you might take that back. It was a time of innocence, RESPECT and INTEGRUTY, and children always minding their parents, if they were smart! At 12, a girl was much more mature than one of today, even though today's girl might look more mature, she certainly isn't~responsibility was expected to be learned at a young age. My Mom and Dad both worked at age 12, and handed the money over to be used for household expenses. Now that may be a little extreme, but that was the way things were 'back then', and it was acceptable, as was taking care of several siblings.

The bottom line is, parents don't feel or think kids should have it a little rough, especially if their own life had some hardships, but it's the hardships that build character and teach lessons, NOT the easy road. ;o)

Thank you for that clarification, patty cakes :) I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

My mil is adamant about few things but one thing that gets her going is the immaturity of young adults these days. At 12, she milked half a dozen cows before walking to school. If she didn't, they wouldn't have had that very necessary money.
I do know not everyone had to do that, but having even a small responsibility to provide for the family makes a child grow up fast.
One of mil's most frequent sayings (she's 85) is "it sure is a different world today".
And, of course it is.

So, kids learn things differently today, maybe at 30 instead of 12, but they are still beautiful creations.

You think it's bad now. Look around next time you are at the supermarket or discount store. So many 4 year olds holding Mommy's phone playing a game.

IMHO, that is giving a kid a "pacifier".

When do kids learn to be quiet for 10 minutes and not cause a ruckus? So what if they are bored? Why isn't Mommy or Daddy using the shopping trip to model positive behavior and teach about math, and choices and budgets.

And this isn't just young parents either. I don't think that age has all that much to do with being a good parent. Some people were blessed to be exposed to it all their lives. It comes easily for them.

I do think for others they know what they Don't want to do, and really are not sure what to do instead. So they do nothing and the kids end up with a lack of structure. This may not be ideal. But it is most certainly better than some "old fashioned " parenting methods like hitting and verbal belittling.

"The bottom line is, parents don't feel or think kids should have it a little rough, especially if their own life had some hardships, but it's the hardships that build character and teach lessons, NOT the easy road"

When I read the thread about all the stuff that parents "need" to send along to college for their inbound freshmen, I knew I was reading comments from parents who don't think their kids should have it a little rough.

Oddly enough I got the impression the kids would change their own, they just wouldn't commit to getting to the bathroom ahead of time...I am not sure. Maybe it's like the breastfeeding preschoolers who walk up and say, Mommy I am hungry.

So, kids learn things differently today, maybe at 30 instead of 12, but they are still beautiful creations.

Nicely said, Bumblebeez!

Wow, I really wish you guys would re-read this thread from a 20 something's point of view. Talk about reverse ageism!

For the record, I'm not even thirty yet and I married, have 2 beautiful children (one of which is 10 years old...you do the math), university AND college degrees, I own my own house (2nd house actually), and have paid off all my student loans by myself. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Another story of kids acting responsibly.

My oldest nephew, age 12, had surgery several months ago. He has medical issues that make anesthesia more difficult to administer and more risky. The surgery was at a hospital 500 miles from his home, and only an hour from my house.

My younger nephew, 7, and niece, 10, stayed with me for the week their brother was in the hospital. Trust me, I've spent a lot of time with these kids and I know exactly what causes fights and disagreements when they are at home. For the entire week they were with me, they were as good as gold. Several things happened that would have caused tantrums or tear at home, but they accepted them calmly at my house. They helped do chores. They made get-well cards for their brother.

The first night they were at my place, my little nephew said to me, "I've never had a sleep-over before." His way of saying that he was a little scared and nervous and missing his parents. And my niece must have overheard him from another room, because she came swooping in and hugged him and told him that she was there to take care of him. Usually, she's trying to steal his cookies and push him off the computer and make him stay out of her room.

They even dealt with a major change in plans--they were supposed to go back to their parents on Thursday, but their brother started spiking a temperature, so I drove them down expecting to hand them off, and had to drive them back to my house for another few days--with no grumbling, even though I knew they were missing their parents and were *not* happy about going back to my house.

They were so good it was beginning to worry me.

A month or so after they all returned home, I asked my sister-in-law how long the good behavior lasted. I expected to hear that they both melted down on the long ride home. But SIL said that they were still eerily good for the first week back home--helping with their brother's care, letting him choose what videos to watch and games to play, fetching him things he couldn't get himself.

It was after that first week, when Oldest Nephew finally returned to school--a sign that he was better and life was back to normal-- that the melt-downs happened. Apparently it was two days of H-E-double toothpicks, and then everything was back to normal.

I think most kids, no matter what their ages, know when they need to step up and deal with things. I just don't think a lot of kids today get the chance, so they never learn how. And there are some unfortunate kids get taught that they don't have to do anything; their parents will always step in.

Hey Steph - I'm also younger and have all my 'stuff' together. Looking at others, do you really think that's the norm now days? I don't see it.

No, I don't think it's the norn, but I don't think it was the norm "back in the good 'ol days" to leave a 12 year old at home alone to tend to 7 siblings. I don't like the generalizations suggesting that young people are incapable of caring for children without wishing they were at the club getting completely wrecked. If some of these comments were being made about a particular ethnic group instead of a particular age bracket, the users would be banned.

Oh, and extended breastfeeding is not the same thing as being too lazy to potty train your child. Quite the opposite actually.

Not saying it's the same thing at all, but personally I find being able to walk up and ask mom for it in a full sentence is a bit too extended for my personal comfort.

The only similarity is that both are of a certain age.

And for that matter if many of the things women said about men or their husbands in here were said about an ethnic group or about other women, they might be banned as well, but I don't necessarily apply them to Myself: it's not necessarily all about you stephf, no need to take it so personally.

I admit, the discussion is a fun one for me to ponder. I think part of the trouble is finding the balance and there will always be some that go too far in either direction. We live in a country where many, many children have the luxury of being children and not having too grow up as quickly as previous generations. This is not necessarily a bad thing except for when people over compensate and never allow them to grow up. Life for my grandmother (born in 1928) as a child was joyless. My mother (born 1958) did not have nearly the same difficulties in her early years but she did have to face problems that were unheard for my grandmother.

I will fess up though, at 34 I absolute DO NOT have it all together. Any time I get cocky enough to think I do, life throws something at me, telling me to pay attention.

I'm glad Steph made her points. This discussion sounds to me exactly like the one about college admission that crops up occasionally--and indeed, it sounds like ANY discussion that incites middle aged folks to remember the 'good old days.'

Same pattern too:

Original post throws out a scenario about how people used to do [X] but now young people do [Y] which is so much less worthy. Cue flood of memories by everyone who did [X],usually at least 30 years ago, and how well it worked. Attach comments about what a shame it is that [Y] is now the norm, how [X] was so much more virtuous and how [Y] is ruining the moral strength of our culture.

Let's see, every time college admission comes up we hear about how everyone got into Yale just by applying on a whim, took the SAT with no prep and got perfect scores, didn't take a dime from good old mom and dad, never phoned them either except once a week from the raggedy old dorm phone etc etc etc.

When it is child rearing we get this trope about times changing so that "kids today" are emotionally stunted, unable to launch and generally just not worth a spit.

What I seem to miss is anyone here admitting that s/he as a parent has actually raised one of these shiftless no-account young people. Everyone is quick to jump in about how bad parenting is, and yet none of us are one of those bad parents. Interesting...

And last but not least one comment in particular really grinds my gears as Peter would say: the theory that following high school the path of getting married, having a child and therefore foregoing educating yourself in favor of becoming wholly dependent on someone else to keep a roof over your head and food in your mouth and your helpless child's is the true act of a responsible adult-makes me first gape in astonishment and then laugh out loud. Literally.

Well said, runninginplace and stephf! Older people have always complained about younger ones, it is drearily predictable. I am 55 years old and very thankful for the young people in my life.

I really didn't think leaving a 12 year old in charge of 7 other kids was a great idea even though it was 70 years ago, but today that would be means for arrest probably and back then it was borne of necessity sometimes.

I can give you an example of really poor child rearing: my sister for various reasons virtually ignored practically everything going on around her for several years, and provided the bare necessities of food, shelter, and clothing and that was about it. The oldest is extremely competent in every way and excels at everything she does. She kind of had to as she was in charge. The middle is fairly typical of her generation, gets things done under pressure and comes out okay (which is more age related than generational, I think): and the third dropped out of high school, has emotional problems, is an alcoholic and has been in jail. And for some reason has an intelligent, together girlfriend. But anyway, three kids from the same environment who turned out three different ways.

On one side of my family I have a moderate number of cousins who and have seen a similar variation among siblings, with the same nuclear family containing an asst. district attorney and someone who has been in jail. Sometimes I think we turn out how we turn out based on a sum total of a bunch of environmental and genetic influences, not just because of our parents.

As far as relying on parents, honestly there are a few things that my dad still does for me (he is 88). I could figure out how to do it myself at this point, but I am still glad he takes care of it.

Pal, your sister's kids seem like they could have also been a product of very good parenting! I have three kids, too. Not to brag, but I think DH and I have done a pretty good job with our kids. We actually get compliments from people who know our family; friends often say we are doing a great job. Anyway, my point is, no matter how well you parent, some kids just come "wired" differently. We have 3 kids, and the oldest is a handful. We have definitely spent a huge percentage of our parenting energy on him because he has had issues his whole life. Was diagnosed with anxiety disorder as a young kid, re-diagnosed with ADD and depression as a teen. Brilliant kid, talented, very difficult to live with. He is so different from DH and me, you'd think he was switched at birth except that he looks just like me. Our other two are totally different. They follow rules, they're very good students, everything isn't a constant battle like it was (is) with our oldest. They are both much more like DH and I were as kids. Oh, and PS, the youngest was adopted.

I guess my point is that sometimes it doesn't matter how good your parenting skills are; sometimes no matter what you do, you could have a child who has emotional problems, drug or alcohol problems, or any number of issues.

My oldest is trying really hard to be Independent but it's always going to be more of a battle for him than it will be for my other kids.

that following high school the path of getting married, having a child and therefore foregoing educating yourself in favor of becoming wholly dependent on someone else to keep a roof over your head and food in your mouth and your helpless child's is the true act of a responsible adult-makes me first gape in astonishment and then laugh out loud. Literally.

Umm, excuse me, but not ALL OF US were dependent on ANYONE to survive and managed to support a family, WITHOUT A COLLEGE DEGREE. Why some people think college is the end all of being responsible is mystifying to me.

The people in our family are all successful and live very comfortable lives, and for those who think money is the end all example of success, one is even a self made millionaire several times over (though miserable as all get out) and all of our successes were accomplished by hard work not a degree. The only one to finally go back to school and obtain a degree is my older sister. She was 53 when she received it, she will be in debt and paying it off for years. Worst part is, it hasn't helped her already successful career at all. So please don't dish out the "cr*p" about how important it is to drown yourself in financial debt for an education that these days gets you very little in return. Europe is a perfect example of what we are seeing happen here. A lot of educated people with no jobs has been the norm there for decades.

Besides, I think the point of the comment about being married with a family by 20 is the fact that most 20 somethings these days are too self absorbed and spoiled to be able to give a d*mn about anyone else but themselves, not to mention that they don't have the skill set needed to make it in the world on their own. Steph and Shee are absolutely exceptions to the rule where in "OUR DAY" it was the norm for kids to have chores and learn how to be responsible. Older siblings were always having to care for the younger kids and assume some responsibilities especially when their mother worked outside of the home. The kids of today aren't expected to lift a finger.

I also don't see why someone who recognizes these issues in their own life should be asked to speak up. The more important result should be that maybe the topic can help someone who's having problems with their kid(s) and sees what might be wrong and how to change it by the conversations here.

Maybe this whole "value of education" thing is regional because where I live if you apply for a job without a degree of some sort, they will laugh in your face. Having just a high school diploma will get you nothing.

Or perhaps this is another example of changing times. My husbands parents got government jobs right out of high school and retired early with full pensions. Now, it doesn't matter how many degrees you have, you can't get a government job unless you are fluent in 2 languages.

I happen to agree with you on the education topic steph. Frankly I feel that I am lucky I have been at the same job for 15 yrs (I am in my early 40's) and I will be at a complete disadvantage if I have to find another job because I dont have a masters. 4yr degrees are almost treated like Highschool degrees used to be, at least around my area and most corporate jobs that I am familiar with. I am sure there are some jobs out there where you are fine with a HS degree, but I would also think that they are far and few between, and you have people with degrees unemployed trying for all types of jobs now too. I guess this could be considered a hot topic I just realized so I am going to stop there! :)

Of course anything is possible, but I don't think it is common.

I don't have a college degree, and I live comfortably. I've been in the same industry for 19 years and will retire comfortably as well. I think it's rather presumptuous to believe that a degree equals success, financially or otherwise. In fact, I know a number of young people who have those high-dollar degrees and can't do a damned thing with them.

"In fact, I know a number of young people who have those high-dollar degrees and can't do a damned thing with them."

This probably has more to do with the state of the economy and the fact that many companies are still on a hiring freeze than the value of the education they've received.

Working for someone else isn't always the answer either; I don't ever see myself working for Corporate America again. IMHO, that has got to be the most undependable and unsatisfying way to make a living. BTW, a very large part of the entrepreneurial community which is thriving is also without a degree.

FWIW, my husband has 2 masters (one in Physics from Russia, another in English from Sweden and is just shy of a third degree in computer programming). He's also fluent in three languages Russian, Swedish and English however, while living in Sweden, the only job available to him was delivering newspapers. He did that for 11 years while continuing his education at the University of Stockholm (for free). He recently turned down a government job in programming but he was not required to speak 2 languages; I think that is more dependent on what the position entails. He would also tell you the education is over rated especially if you have no experience to back it up.

I'm not saying this is true of everyone but I think one thing that is not taught in the colleges is common sense and a lot of the problems we have in corporate America today is because of bean counters and managers who think they know it all and haven't got practical experience or a lick of common sense to think their decisions through.

I don't think my point came across well. I did not say anything about being successful. I think your odds of getting a job in the current job market will be vastly higher if you have a degree. Many companies don't even look at a resume if there isn't a degree on it. It is a way to weed out applicants. This may be area specific as we stated above, but there are jobs around here that in the past (think 10 years ago or more) would not need a degree, but that given the volume of applicants would now end up going to someone that had a degree.

I think my kids will have an easier time finding a job with a degree of some kind, so why would I want them at a disadvantage? Of course there are exceptions, but why chance it?

I guess I was right about this being a hot topic.

There is the possibility of lack of common sense in all positions and whether someone works for someone else, or has their own business. We see complaints about this all the time on these boards.

This "bean counter" and manager will now keep her comments to herself!

Boop, I know a lot of "bean counters" in my line of work, and they are highly intelligent and sensible people. (Fun and witty too, believe it or not!) :-)

"This probably has more to do with the state of the economy and the fact that many companies are still on a hiring freeze than the value of the education they've received."

Stephf, I have to respectfully disagree with you on that. The obvious result of more people getting four year degrees is more people competing for the same amount of jobs. The market becomes flooded with educated people (shouldering tons of debt) who can't find work. It's already happened. A four year degree just doesn't make you stand out anymore, no matter the economy. I'm not anti-degree, but if either of my children, who are 7 and 6, elect not to go to college and have a clear plan (a trade or two-year program), I won't force them into it.

My husband was recruited by a prestigious prep school out of high school (sports related) and decided to join the Army after his post grad year. He is a firefighter who started a successful side business a few years ago. Without a degree. I can't tell you how many of the firefighters with side businesses are making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

It's great that you have your degree(s) and you should be proud, but to each his own, I guess.

DH and I both have college degrees and we always assumed our kids would too, but a four year (or more) degree is not for everyone. My oldest DD has a higher IQ than most people, but he has pretty serious executive functioning problems and ADD. After about 5 months of college, living away from home, he was vomiting every morning on his way to class and I think if he hadn't withdrawn when he did, he would have had a nervous breakdown or worse. So, plan B, he came home and earned a one-year certificate in film, graduated in June, then completed a 6-week film work study program at another program, then 6 individual week-long workshops in subjects like film editing, cinematography, etc. Through these programs, he gained much more hands-on experience than he would have if he'd stayed at his other college for four years. He's also made so many contacts through the instructors he had, who are all working in the industry. The best thing is that in all of these programs, he had so much individualized attention because there were no more than 12 students in any of them. Will be be at a significant disadvantage when he's job hunting this fall? We'll find out soon enough. But I do strongly believe that not everyone is cut out for the traditional college experience, and depending on the field you're in, it's not always necessary.

Two things.

#1, I'm Canadian, where we have two official languages. In order to get hired by the government now you need to be able to speak both, it doesn't depend upon the position.

#2, I agree that having a degree alone doesn't not make you stand out from hundreds of other applicants, but that doesn't mean it's not worth getting a degree. Finding a job in this market takes not only education, but also a certain amount of charisma and a whole lot of luck.

"I don't have a college degree, and I live comfortably. I've been in the same industry for 19 years and will retire comfortably as well." - Sunnycottage

Sunnycottage - The people who are going into your industry these days - are they coming in with only high school or is something more expected/required now.
Twenty years ago you could get into many jobs, company training programs, etc without post-secondary education. That, for many careers, is no longer the case.

I'm in the energy sector, so naturally someone such as a petroleum engineer would be expected to be degreed. However, I work on the administrative side of the business (have also worked for years in corporate legal administration), and a degree is not necessarily required at the entry level. However (and not tooting my own horn here, just stating a fact), those at my level always have years of experience under the belt. There simply aren't any baby-faced newbies where I'm currently sitting. ;-)

There are different ways to looks at college. One is to be educated for education's sake. The other is to be educated toward the goal of employment.
It is true that years ago a college degree set you apart. Not so now.
It's great if you can start college with a plan and goal toward employment. But this doesn't always happen. I do see the value in a college education and I do believe that I think the way I do because I was fortunate enough to attend college.
In upscale areas, where I live, vocational choices are not encouraged. My daughter wound up transferring from a four year out of state school, to Fashion Institute of Technology. All of the students in her program (about 30 of them) got jobs upon graduation.
My husband worked in telephone techcology. He stayed for over 30 years. The days of staying in a company and retiring are long gone.
Hopefully, with the high level of umemployment, high school guidance will encourage more vocational training or goal oriented paths for employment.

I don't think there is anything wrong when someone wants to get an education, believe me. We've been paying for my husband's tuition for years and will continue to do so because he enjoys it. Me? Not so much, but that doesn't mean I'm not employable and can't make a nice living. Understandably, I may not have as many options but neither do the people with degrees because there aren't enough jobs to go around. I can only speak for myself but I do much better when I can make my own choices and work on my own. Self employment isn't for everyone either but I sure do love it.

Sorry Boop, no offense meant by the term bean counters.

My oldest DD has friends who are in their 50's, and have 5 children~both parents are functioning alcholics. The family is intact inspite of this, although the oldest child had a lot of responsibility for the younger siblings while growing up. She was always a good student, and didn't have parents telling her what to do 24/7. She went on to college and has a good job~same for the 4th sibling.

DD doesn't see them too frequently, so doesn't know if the other 3 kids have taken the same path toward education.

My point is, there are times when it's the child with the motivation because of a lifestyle he/she had while growing up, and possibly wanted more in their own future.

"Twenty years ago you could get into many jobs, company training programs, etc without post-secondary education. That, for many careers, is no longer the case."

I totally agree with that statement. Things are different today than when many of us were starting out.

Sue also makes some good points and what's good for one child is not necessarily the right thing for another. I work with college students, and believe me, I have seen first hand that college is not for everyone.

Good point also about some people taking classes because they enjoy it or want to learn more.

tina

I took the comment made by runninginplace to be a feminist statement, and not a put down on young adults in general.

That a woman who goes from having her parents take care of her (high schooler), immediately to having a husband take care of her, without the consideration for first developing the ability to take care of herself financially if necessary, may be making a choice that can reduce the horizon of options available to her in the future.

And I agree. I have 2 daughters and want them to have the ability to support themselves comfortably, hopefully doing something they find stimulating and rewarding.

' "Twenty years ago you could get into many jobs, company training programs, etc without post-secondary education. That, for many careers, is no longer the case."
I totally agree with that statement. Things are different today than when many of us were starting out.'

Twenty years ago technology consisted of a telephone, an adding machine and manually operated machines in most workplaces. Computers and computer driven technology weren't in existence in every workplace.

If one doesn't adapt their education and skillset to get to the starting line which clearly moved, one has no chance of participating in the race.

"I took the comment made by runninginplace to be a feminist statement, and not a put down on young adults in general.

That a woman who goes from having her parents take care of her (high schooler), immediately to having a husband take care of her, without the consideration for first developing the ability to take care of herself financially if necessary, may be making a choice that can reduce the horizon of options available to her in the future. "

This is exactly what I was trying to say, and obviously not as clearly and eloquently as the words quoted above. Thanks for the much better phrasing Julie!

Ann

Glad I could help!

What do you think about the old saying about women going to school to get their Ms. degree? That is what happened to my friends. They all met their DH's in college. Although, they are still happily married (it seems, anyway) and truly loved them. I don't think any of them WENT to college thinking they were there to only meet a guy and marry them, but, that is what happens when you go to college, normally you meet pretty upstanding guys that were probably going to be somewhat successful-BACK THEN.

Most of my girlfriends have their Bachelor's, with quite a number of them having their Master's. I have my Bachelor's at this point, I'm fifty years old and my girlfriends a bit younger. Anyway, most of them, including me, have not worked out of the home in YEARS! I'm not sure I could find a really good job, at my age, and without any of the recent experience I would need to get a great job, if I needed one, even with my degree. And, my GF's would be in the same boat probably. Hopefully, none of us will need to be in the position to have to have a paying job, but, you never know.

Just saying, in our case, our degrees may not even matter, but, going to college (back then anyway) landed their hubby's with degrees and very good jobs. Except mine, I married my highschool sweetheart after college, and we were married for just a little over a year! Then a few years later married my now hubby who is more sucessful than first one, and he does not have a college degree.

In these times, it is scary to not have worked in many years, but, worth the risk, IMO, to have stayed home with my DS, and taking care of our home.

Times HAVE changed, in that college degrees don't get you that great job anymore, unless you are in a specialty field, like a doctor, etc.

My DS just assumes that he will go to college, though. Because he doesn't know any better that after high school is college!

Steph, I am Canadian also, and I have to respectfully disagree with your statement '...I'm Canadian, where we have two official languages. In order to get hired by the government now you need to be able to speak both, it doesn't depend upon the position.'

That is simply not true. Many Federal jobs (in Ottawa, Quebec and New Brunswick especially) are bilingual imperative, but it's certainly not a requirement for *all* positions. Outside NB and Quebec, it would not be the norm for Provincial government jobs to have a bilingual requirement. I live in New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual Province in Canada, and even here there are English-only and French-only government jobs.

Olliesmom,

While you might not have the work experience of someone who has worked outside the home over the last 25 years, your college degree does count for a lot should you decide to return to paid work.

Many positions, even in smaller companies that can be more flexible, are listed as college degree preferred.

I was home when my kids were young, and then worked part time for several years when they were in their teens. I have been full time about 5-7 years now. Every job I have ever had, it has been a plus when interviewing. But I will say that anyone just starting out has to be prepared to work at entry level wages. So no you cannot expect to make as much as if you had 25 years of experience, but you would still have the qualifications to be considered for entry level positions that state college required or college preferred.

And additionally all of the community interaction that many SAH parents experience is very useful. My experiences using the computer and volunteering at my kids' schools and extracurricular activities gave me the up to date skills that were expected with computer use and networking. That plus my degree made me qualified.