Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't agree. I think that there is time and place for social technologies, but, if one has to choose between an iPad and music lessons, and many people have to make that choice, I think that the music lessons provide a far more enriching experience.
Kids pick up technology almost by osmosis. And, due to the very odd prioritization that has occurred in schools over the last decade, many believe that tech is more important than exposure to the arts.
Oh, sure, your kid can learn to play the piano on their iPad (I hate that commercial, BTW) but, will it have the same resonance or carry the same sense of accomplishment as learning on a Steinway?
Nope.
I applaud anyone who is able to provide all of the above, but many cannot, and IMHO, it is a sad, sad world where children may never hear a Broadway soundtrack or know the difference between Van Gogh and Matisse on sight, but will be able to text at 100 wpm in broken English.
This thread is about 8 to 12 year-olds lest we forget. So a kid sharing a family iPad or lap top is now classified as the "bare minimum"? Good to know.
Those are YOUR words. Can you point me to the place where I stated that? Of course you can't because I never said it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick
I have always maintained what people buy their children is their business, but to state a child aged 8 to 12 needs their own iPad and laptop is nonsense. Different strokes. Many families will spend the same dollar value on a kid as a Mac book, I have friends that bought each member of the family a ticket to Iceland for Christmas, hardly a travesty.
I know you are smart and can tell the difference between:
1. A child needs an iPad.
2. It is no big deal if a child has an iPad.
Kids don't NEED any technology. Parents may choose to buy them some devices. That does not mean they NEED them. Nobody does. But people generally do not limit themselves to the bare minimum to sustain life. They frequently buy things that they do not need and it truly isn't a big deal.
The faulty logic in this thread is that there is something wrong with a child having more than the bare minimum needed to sustain life.
I don't think that is true at all.
I don't believe that the OP thinks that kids should have only food and water and a bed to sleep in and nothing more. I certainly don't believe that.
I think that the issue has more to do with the constant aging down of virtually everything in society. Yes, tech is a part of everyone's life now, but, does it have to be part and parcel of a young(er) child's life to the same extent that it is for a middle or high schooler? I understand that for many people these "things" are simply tools, no different than how we used to regard a rotary phone, I suppose, even though they cost many, many, many times more. I also understand that for some the cost is immaterial and I think that the OP is wondering what sort of message does that send? I know I do. I also wonder at the seeming addiction to these "things" that causes people to wait in line for the alleged next best version of same. What is that teaching our children? They are still just "things" after all.
And, secondarily, I think that there is the issue of "benchmarks" and "milestones."
I'm sure many of us remember being old enough for a two-wheeler or a skateboard or crossing the street by ourselves. Minor in the larger scheme, but, very important at the time. What are the milestones now?
Is it when the kid receives a iPad and then another iPad?
How many children could do that before home computers and iPhones?
My family's idea of a great time is to go to a museum so I'm in them a lot. I see as many kids in them now as I did pre-computer revolution. Maybe even more. I've seen kids walking around the exhibits with phones asking the docents if they are allowed to take photos of a particular painting or piece of sculpture. Some have iPads and are referencing them while they walk around. I think that's pretty cool.
I can remember when ear phones and pre-recorded tours were first introduced in museums. People got all upset over them too. They were paying attention to the technology itself, not what people were learning with the technology. I think the OP tends to do that as well. Or he only sees the negatives. I believe the positives far outweigh the negatives.
Mine could.
I could when I was a kid. So could most of my friends.
I am not saying that iPads, etc. are not good tools, but, why the dependence on them? It is almost as if kids, and adults too, to be perfectly honest, cannot believe what they see with their own eyes if it is not confirmed or validated by the electronic "buddy" in their hands.
Personally, I never utilize a recorded tour either. I want to have a personal experience with the art.
That means my eyes, my interpretation. I fear that we are losing the desire and ability to have these personal experiences and trust ourselves at a very rapid pace. And, it is a particularly insidious danger for young children who have not yet had the opportunity to formally develop their own ideas about things.
It is a form of dependency, the ultimate in "group-think."
But, if it keeps them quiet and occupied, it's all good, right?
I could when I was a kid. So could most of my friends.
I am not saying that iPads, etc. are not good tools, but, why the dependence on them? It is almost as if kids, and adults too, to be perfectly honest, cannot believe what they see with their own eyes if it is not confirmed or validated by the electronic "buddy" in their hands.
Personally, I never utilize a recorded tour either. I want to have a personal experience with the art.
That means my eyes, my interpretation. I fear that we are losing the desire and ability to have these personal experiences and trust ourselves at a very rapid pace. And, it is a particularly insidious danger for young children who have not yet had the opportunity to formally develop their own ideas about things.
It is a form of dependency, the ultimate in "group-think."
But, if it keeps them quiet and occupied, it's all good, right?
In case you missed it, this was one of Finkelstein's conjectures.
Yes, my kids are in college. I would say computers began heavily figuring into their schoolwork as HS freshmen, which is when we got them laptops. I do have friends with younger kids, and they all manage to do quite well with access to a family computer. The thread isn't about older kids. I responded to this way of thinking:
A 4 year old doesn't need an Ipad. I dare say an 8 year old doesn't either. Let's not pretend young kids are using them to get ahead academically, they are using them to play with.
If a parent wants to buy electronics for young children, go ahead. I think in some cases, it's the lazy way out. Let the IPad read to your kids, let them play games. I'm glad I read aloud every day, and we played board games around the kitchen table. My kids learned how to be social by going outside and asking friends to play. Different strokes.
What is the difference between playing a board game on an ipad or on the table? My bestfriends father cannot play most games due to a health issue ruining his manual dexterity. The ipad allows him to play hungry hippos, boggle, and a bunch of other board games with his granddaughter.
And while reading to your kids is great, by 8 they should be learning to enjoy books on their own, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with reading books on an electronic device. In my own family, buying electronic books meant everybody could be reading whatever book just came out at the same time without having to take it from someone else.
I don't think that is true at all.
I don't believe that the OP thinks that kids should have only food and water and a bed to sleep in and nothing more. I certainly don't believe that.
Well complaining that a child has something they don't need certainly sounds as if a person doesn't think kids should have things they don't need. Kids only really need food, clothing and shelter. Anything else is extra. What is the difference if they have a toy that is extra or an iPad that is extra other than the cost?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
I think that the issue has more to do with the constant aging down of virtually everything in society. Yes, tech is a part of everyone's life now, but, does it have to be part and parcel of a young(er) child's life to the same extent that it is for a middle or high schooler?
It doesn't have to be part of a younger child's life. But what is the big deal if it is part of a younger child's life? Where is the harm other than that it offends your sensibilities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
I understand that for many people these "things" are simply tools, no different than how we used to regard a rotary phone, I suppose, even though they cost many, many, many times more. I also understand that for some the cost is immaterial and I think that the OP is wondering what sort of message does that send? I know I do. I also wonder at the seeming addiction to these "things" that causes people to wait in line for the alleged next best version of same. What is that teaching our children? They are still just "things" after all.
The point is that they are just things so what is the difference if children own them? I personally have never stood in line to get the latest whatever but I do like gadgets. I really don't care if other people stand in line though. Just like I don't really care what other people buy their kids for Christmas. I can't see why it is such a concern that other people do things that we personally think are stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
And, secondarily, I think that there is the issue of "benchmarks" and "milestones." I'm sure many of us remember being old enough for a two-wheeler or a skateboard or crossing the street by ourselves. Minor in the larger scheme, but, very important at the time. What are the milestones now?
Is it when the kid receives a iPad and then another iPad?
For my kids getting a two wheeler was a big deal. Being allowed to go to the bus stop without an adult was a big deal. Starting middle school. Starting high school. First date. Getting a drivers license. Going away to college. I don't associate technology devices with milestones. They are just things and no different from other things.
I could when I was a kid. So could most of my friends.
I am not saying that iPads, etc. are not good tools, but, why the dependence on them? It is almost as if kids, and adults too, to be perfectly honest, cannot believe what they see with their own eyes if it is not confirmed or validated by the electronic "buddy" in their hands.
Personally, I never utilize a recorded tour either. I want to have a personal experience with the art.
That means my eyes, my interpretation. I fear that we are losing the desire and ability to have these personal experiences and trust ourselves at a very rapid pace. And, it is a particularly insidious danger for young children who have not yet had the opportunity to formally develop their own ideas about things.
It is a form of dependency, the ultimate in "group-think."
But, if it keeps them quiet and occupied, it's all good, right?
Why the false dichotomy? Just owning them does not imply dependence.
And a little fyi, children are not really able to formulate the sort of abstract reasoning you are talking about until they are in the teen years, so if it is really about letting them formulate their own ideas in a vacuum, don't take them to museums, zoos, the arts, etc until then. Makes a lot of sense right?
I know several people whose kids under the age of 10 have ipads...and whose kids in their tweens/teens have iphones (usually 4, 4s, or 5).
My son is one. He uses our ipad (ipad 2 - bought for my wife over a year ago - she used it more during breastfeeding, etc) more than anyone else does. We simply don't care about it anymore and rarely use it. He finds it entertaining (he likes to flip through icons and there are some games he can play). So I guess he has an ipad, but it wasn't something we bought for him.
I'm not assuming that they are mutually exclusive. Of course the best prepared kids will do both.
But, my oldest started school in 1978 and I have one currently in high school.
I know how the curricula have changed over the years and where the emphasis lies. Where kids used to be encouraged by their teachers to go to museums or concerts and the like, now they just get pointed to websites.
Does anyone really believe that the purpose of teaching is to simply point kids towards websites?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
