Parental Strictness and Political Affiliation

[GaussLaw]

I always thought the relationship between parenting and political affiliation was an interesting one.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/science-confirms-obvious-authoritarian-parents-raise-conservative-offspring
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/how-to-raise-a-little-liberal-or-conservative-48145/
There are several articles online about how conservative parents tend to be stricter.

But I am a little skeptical based on my own experiences.  Obviously, there are different definitions of "strict", but the parents I meet in rural Missouri (very conservative area) tend to be very lax on average.  They don't expect much out of their kids academically; most of my students have plenty of free time.  Meanwhile, people like Amy Chua tend to be liberal politically (especially Asian households).  Many of these households are very strict with kids about grades, studying, free time, dating, etc.    These types of parents seem very common in liberal areas, like NoVa, the research triangle, the Bay area, etc. 

Obviously, the definition of strict is rather subjective.  But I think the "conservative = strict authoritarian parenting and liberal = authoritative or permissive parenting"  paradigm I see in articles just doesn't seem to match up.  Kids on average would be under much more intense pressure in NoVa or Montgomery County than they would be in rural Missouri or Arkansas, at least from an academic standpoint.

I'm very curious what Atlas's take would be on this theme.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

You often have stereotypically strict Black and Asian households voting democratic while you often have, as you mentioned, white households who are less strict voting republican. I bet that the stereotype generally comes from the fact that the largest traditional single constituencies for each party, culturally conservative middle class whites for Republicans and white libertines for democrats, generally do fit the mold.

[ElectionsGuy]

There does seem to be that kind of relationship with authoritarian - conservative and authoritative - liberal. Conservatives are authoritarian at heart, so it makes sense. However, I think the situation that you describe comparing rural Missouri/Arkansas to NoVa or the Bay Area has to do more with wealth. Their parents probably spent more time in education, have advanced careers, and therefore expect more out of their kids than parents in rural Missouri that maybe didn't get a college education and raise their family on a household income of $40,000.

Philosophically though, the former definitely fits the bill. There's obviously variations everywhere you go, but there's a general connection. My parents are incredibly conservative and they raised me pretty strict (I don't regret in thinking it was pretty bad). Other parents that I know who are very conservative raised their children on a very strict lifestyle. I've never been exposed to what liberal parenting might be like (since I've been surrounded with conservatism all my life). But I do think there is a lot of consistency when it comes down to it.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Isn't there a stereotype that Lutherans are strict parents?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I understand that there would be a correlation for people who perhaps aren't very interested in politics, but most of us here are smart enough to have reached our own conclusions, unless the parenting was very extreme. Maybe the way we're raised has something to do with "where we start out" on the political spectrum, but I imagine it changed quickly for many of us.

I set up Liberal signs with my dad for the 2000 federal election in Canada. I remember going to a friend's house and asking his parents how they could possibly vote for the Canadian Alliance. So that's probably where I started out.

Then in grade nine I made the decision that I would be the contrarian at my arts school and defend George W. Bush. How could he really be that terrible? Obviously there was a reason for why he did the things he did, and obviously someone had supported him... so while basking in the attention of being a contrarian mostly for the sake of it, I actually started following what was going on. I followed the 2008 election religiously and really wanted Hillary to win. So I guess you could say I was open to being a moderate at that point. By the time Hillary lost, it was clear to me that Obama was an empty suit so I looked for reasons to support McCain. In the end, I actually liked a lot of what he had to say.

So, more than anything, I'd say my journey didn't really have much to do with my parents and was instead a product of me being cheeky. Obviously in the intervening years I've started to be honest with myself about what I believe and have taken up what I hope are more informed positions, but, again, it was all me.

As I said, I'll bet that's the case for most people here. I make the exception for people with really wacko parents because I think that's likely where some of the, erm, extremism comes from on this forum. I would not be surprised if the right-wing nuts grew up in a nutty right-wing environment, and I wouldn't be surprised if the left-wing extremists are pushing back against growing up in a similarly right-leaning environment. Extremism may also be a cry for attention from kids who never really had a great relationship with their parents, politics aside.

[GaussLaw]

There does seem to be that kind of relationship with authoritarian - conservative and authoritative - liberal. Conservatives are authoritarian at heart, so it makes sense. However, I think the situation that you describe comparing rural Missouri/Arkansas to NoVa or the Bay Area has to do more with wealth. Their parents probably spent more time in education, have advanced careers, and therefore expect more out of their kids than parents in rural Missouri that maybe didn't get a college education and raise their family on a household income of $40,000.

Philosophically though, the former definitely fits the bill. There's obviously variations everywhere you go, but there's a general connection. My parents are incredibly conservative and they raised me pretty strict (I don't regret in thinking it was pretty bad). Other parents that I know who are very conservative raised their children on a very strict lifestyle. I've never been exposed to what liberal parenting might be like (since I've been surrounded with conservatism all my life). But I do think there is a lot of consistency when it comes down to it.

I'm curious EG, what do you define as "strict"?  Do you define strictness by academic expectations, curfew, media restrictions, and stuff of that nature?  Those were generally what I was using as the definition of "strict", though I know there are others.  Does "very strict lifestyle" mean no drugs/drinking or is it much harsher than that?  I know you live in suburban Milwaukee, which is a pretty conservative and wealthy area; wealthy conservative areas would likely have stricter families than more rural areas, IMO.   

[ElectionsGuy]

Isn't there a stereotype that Lutherans are strict parents?

That's funny, my parents are Lutherans.

There does seem to be that kind of relationship with authoritarian - conservative and authoritative - liberal. Conservatives are authoritarian at heart, so it makes sense. However, I think the situation that you describe comparing rural Missouri/Arkansas to NoVa or the Bay Area has to do more with wealth. Their parents probably spent more time in education, have advanced careers, and therefore expect more out of their kids than parents in rural Missouri that maybe didn't get a college education and raise their family on a household income of $40,000.

Philosophically though, the former definitely fits the bill. There's obviously variations everywhere you go, but there's a general connection. My parents are incredibly conservative and they raised me pretty strict (I don't regret in thinking it was pretty bad). Other parents that I know who are very conservative raised their children on a very strict lifestyle. I've never been exposed to what liberal parenting might be like (since I've been surrounded with conservatism all my life). But I do think there is a lot of consistency when it comes down to it.

I'm curious EG, what do you define as "strict"?  Do you define strictness by academic expectations, curfew, media restrictions, and stuff of that nature?  Those were generally what I was using as the definition of "strict", though I know there are others.  Does "very strict lifestyle" mean no drugs/drinking or is it much harsher than that?  I know you live in suburban Milwaukee, which is a pretty conservative and wealthy area; wealthy conservative areas would likely have stricter families than more rural areas, IMO.   

Pretty much all this stuff, yes. When I say very strict lifestyle I mean stuff like parents choosing what goes on in the house, what foods/drinks can be consumed, what activities will be done, etc. without much flexibility. Some of my friends parents that I grew up with were like that. I know that here academic standards are everything for some parents, and that maybe has to do more with the wealth of the area than the conservatism.

I understand that there would be a correlation for people who perhaps aren't very interested in politics, but most of us here are smart enough to have reached our own conclusions, unless the parenting was very extreme. Maybe the way we're raised has something to do with "where we start out" on the political spectrum, but I imagine it changed quickly for many of us.

This is especially the case with me, starting out as a conservative republican when I was 12 or 13 by default of my parents (but this had to do with the political activism of my parents, not strictness) and eventually getting more and more libertarian. Even as soon as a year ago when I joined this forum I was still republican lite. But for people who follow politics on a vague level, it definitely does have some sort of impact, at least the way they live their life, if not also the way they vote.

[GaussLaw]

Pretty much all this stuff, yes. When I say very strict lifestyle I mean stuff like parents choosing what goes on in the house, what foods/drinks can be consumed, what activities will be done, etc. without much flexibility. Some of my friends parents that I grew up with were like that. I know that here academic standards are everything for some parents, and that maybe has to do more with the wealth of the area than the conservatism.

This is interesting that you mentioned food/drinks as something conservative strict parents regulate.  The stereotype tends to be that liberals are much more health-conscious and that conservative parents would be more tolerant of fast food/junk food.  After all, Sarah Palin handed out cookies to students in one school as a protest to new anti-obesity regulations.  Of course, the correlation there, like with education, likely is largely related to the wealth of the area rather than conservatism, as you mentioned.  

Media restrictions would likely be most correlated with an area's conservatism, though I do know plenty of conservatives who love the Simpsons and especially South Park.  But overall, the correlation would probably be tightest here. 

Thanks for your commentary, ElectionsGuy.  It is quite interesting to hear personal testimony regarding this.  Where I grew up(rural Missouri), all parents were about the same in strictness.  The kids on farms had to work more, but the non-farm kids all had relatively few expectations.  Other than chores, an expectation of graduating high school, and a basic curfew, kids were pretty much free to do what they wanted.  Conservatism/liberalism didn't really make a difference, though it was a rather conservative area.  

Perhaps there are more differences depen

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Without the strictest discipline and highest expectations my parents enforced, I never would have obtained my organ scholarship to Oxford University.

[GaussLaw]

Without the strictest discipline and highest expectations my parents enforced, I never would have obtained my organ scholarship to Oxford University.

For a second there I thought you were the actual Hifly.   Sounds the exact same and is a good argument against strict parenting.

Honestly, this is practically for another thread, but I don't see the point in aiming for top universities and parents making kids get straight A's, perfect SATs, and a hundred extracurriculars.  Just get a 3.5 or something in high school, go to your state university, and study what you're interested in with a plan to make it a career.    Personally, I'd rather be a physics teacher making 40K/year with little stress than be a consultant working 70-hour weeks making 100K a year or something, especially after adjusting for cost of living.

[angus]

I always thought the relationship between parenting and political affiliation was an interesting one.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/science-confirms-obvious-authoritarian-parents-raise-conservative-offspring
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/how-to-raise-a-little-liberal-or-conservative-48145/
There are several articles online about how conservative parents tend to be stricter.

...

I've seen articles like this as well.  I wouldn't read too much into it.  There are too many counterexamples.  My wife's parents, for example, were very strict with her, and they're both members of the Communist Party.  My parents, on the other hand, were very lax, and they were both loyal Democrats.  (Democrats are somewhere to the right of Communists, I'll assume.)

I also have some colleagues who are way out in left field.  They vote for Democrats--well, she does; he's not a US citizen but supports Greens and Socialists, and Democrats when the choice is only D or R--yet they're about as strict as I can imagine with their children.  They are strict vegetarians and won't let the children eat any meat and they're extremely intolerant of any attempts the children make to extend their waking hours beyond an extremely precise bedtime.  (8:17 pm as I recall)  

On the other hand, my sister's second husband had parents who were traditionalist and Reaganauts, yet they were so very lax that they didn't even push any of their children toward any post-secondary education.  So far, they all turned out okay, by the way.  Steady jobs, crime-free records, etc.  I also know rightists and traditionalists who are strict parents.  Specific number of hours must be spent on piano practice, math homework, sports, etc.  So it's really all over the place.

I realize that there may be some statistical correlation between such things, but the number of counterexamples is too great to ignore.  Moreover, the authors make the common mistake of assuming that conservative is the opposite of liberal.  While it is a quirk of American politics that such a mistake is common, the opposite of liberal is illiberal, and there is no reason that one cannot be conservative and liberal in equal measures.  This false opposite is especially problematic for studies such as this, because the "liberal" attitude might as easily be one of extreme micromanagement of children as of extreme neglect, depending upon the latest parenting magazine article the "liberal" parent happened to have read most recently.

I'm not sure how exactly to define my own parenting style or my wife's.  She seems to be stricter when it comes to safety, health, and nutrition, but somewhat lax when it comes to social endeavors or scheduling.  I'm rather the exact opposite.  I assume that this has more to do with female conditioning vis-a-vis male conditioning rather than with any preconceived notions regarding public economic policy.  Any correlation is at best an effect, not a cause.  And probably not even an effect.

[King]

Hagrid, I would say even if you are highly involved, it becomes difficult to separate from your parents because you start out with a selection bias against information that may contradict values you were ingrained with growing up.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hagrid, I would say even if you are highly involved, it becomes difficult to separate from your parents because you start out with a selection bias against information that may contradict values you were ingrained with growing up.

I can see that too, but I'm just sort of trying to square it with my own experience. My dad is a real staunch Liberal. Then again, I've voted the same as him for the last two provincial elections, so maybe I'm all talk.

[GaussLaw]

I'm not sure how exactly to define my own parenting style or my wife's.  She seems to be stricter when it comes to safety, health, and nutrition, but somewhat lax when it comes to social endeavors or scheduling.  I'm rather the exact opposite.  I assume that this has more to do with female conditioning vis-a-vis male conditioning rather than with any preconceived notions regarding public economic policy.  Any correlation is at best an effect, not a cause.  And probably not even an effect.

This is definitely something that I think is worth noting.  For instance, vegetarians and health food types tend to be pretty liberal on average, and they would definitely score "stricter" on the nutrition level than conservatives on average.

If I were to break them down as you did, I would guess:
Safety - liberals stricter (certainly if legislative records show it)
Health/nutrition - liberals stricter
Social endeavors - conservatives probably stricter (assuming things like dating)
Scheduling - no idea, but probably more related to wealth of area as opposed to politics (wealthier area = more scheduled kids, but kids on farms would also be quite busy)
Education - again, this is likely more wealth related than anything
Media(TV, movies, etc.) - conservatives likely stricter, strong correlation with religiosity here 

It's interesting to see others' opinions here.  It seems like when there are articles about this subject, there is nowhere near enough nuance to them.

[Simfan34]

My parents have always been quite firm. So I suppose being a Republican makes sense when viewed through that lens.

[GaussLaw]

These are some really interesting responses.

Obviously this is all anecdotal, but it would be fascinating to see others' experiences.

[Hatman 🍁]

We're pretty liberal parents, and we're pretty liberal politically. I always thought the two went hand-in-hand, generally.

[GaussLaw]

This is very interesting, as it seems to be the opposite in my experiences.

In my town, it seems that all the Republican kids are the ones who drink, smoke, do drugs, have sex, party hard, etc. and many have "cool" parents that will actually drink and smoke with them, fully permitting them to have the freedom to do these things. It seems that all the Democratic kids are the ones who have more conservative personalities that are less thrill-seeking and more cautious than the GOPers.

This may also have a lot to do with class and race, as the Republican kids are white and middle/upper-middle class, while the Democratic kids are white/black/Asian/Hispanic and more concentrated in the regular middle class range of income.

I don't see much difference in terms of academics, as the Dem kids get higher grades while Repubs tend to be more into extracurriculars (athletic and academic) and work.

Then again, my town is pretty homogenous, and my upbringing between a more permissive, Republican dad and ultra-strict, Asian, liberal independent mother has pushed me to have moderate political views despite a deeply conservative personality.

I'd like to see more studies that have larger sample sizes, with detailed demographic information as well.

Now this is quite surprising(the stuff in bold).  It's interesting that kids with liberal political views have conservative personalities.  What's also interesting is that the NWI suburbs in Chicago (where I see you live) don't strike me as that different from Waukesha County where Elections Guy lives, but the experiences seem quite different.

Clarko95, that was a very good counterexample.  It would be interesting to see what kind of places demographically have that pattern within the community.  I would guess areas with high income, high Asian population, and close proximity to poorer or more urban areas.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So it is true that the abused becomes the abuser...

FTR, my personal upbringing would tend to confirm this. My parents are the coolest and nicest parents ever.

[DC Al Fine]

So it is true that the abused becomes the abuser...

Because you know strictness is totally the same as abuse

[Indy Texas]

I haven't seen this IRL.

I've known your stereotypical "good ole boy" white conservative families where the kids party and drink through high school and college and the parents either turn a blind eye or actually enable it, but on Sundays they all revert to good Evangelical Christian form and on the first Tuesday in November they are reliable Republicans.

I also knew a lot of South Asian/East Asian families that were run like military dictatorships - absolutely no dating or going out on weekends, any grades less than an A in school were met with severe (sometimes corporal) punishment - and the parents were very liberal Democrats (though they generally seemed pretty agnostic on the Faith/Family/Freedom issues that get white people so riled up).

[Indy Texas]

This is very interesting, as it seems to be the opposite in my experiences.

In my town, it seems that all the Republican kids are the ones who drink, smoke, do drugs, have sex, party hard, etc. and many have "cool" parents that will actually drink and smoke with them, fully permitting them to have the freedom to do these things. It seems that all the Democratic kids are the ones who have more conservative personalities that are less thrill-seeking and more cautious than the GOPers.

This may also have a lot to do with class and race, as the Republican kids are white and middle/upper-middle class, while the Democratic kids are white/black/Asian/Hispanic and more concentrated in the regular middle class range of income.

I don't see much difference in terms of academics, as the Dem kids get higher grades while Repubs tend to be more into extracurriculars (athletic and academic) and work.

Then again, my town is pretty homogenous, and my upbringing between a more permissive, Republican dad and ultra-strict, Asian, liberal independent mother has pushed me to have moderate political views despite a deeply conservative personality.

I'd like to see more studies that have larger sample sizes, with detailed demographic information as well.

Now this is quite surprising(the stuff in bold).  It's interesting that kids with liberal political views have conservative personalities.  What's also interesting is that the NWI suburbs in Chicago (where I see you live) don't strike me as that different from Waukesha County where Elections Guy lives, but the experiences seem quite different.

Clarko95, that was a very good counterexample.  It would be interesting to see what kind of places demographically have that pattern within the community.  I would guess areas with high income, high Asian population, and close proximity to poorer or more urban areas.

That's less a political affiliation thing and more a socioeconomic class thing - the politics may be correlated with the socioeconomic class but it's not what's driving the behavior.

Ostensibly, an upper/upper-middle-class white kid has more "margin for error" in their behavior. If they get arrested for underage drinking, their parents can easily afford to bail them out and maybe pull some strings with the local authorities. They don't necessarily need to do well in school because they don't need to get scholarships to college - their parents can pay full fare. They don't need to stand out in college because they can use family connections to get a job afterwards.

By contrast, the working class striver has virtually no margin for error. They need scholarships for college. Their parents can't save the day if they screw up. They can't fall back on working for daddy's company if they don't succeed academically.

It reminds me of a book that came out recently called Paying for the Party. It compared the trajectories of freshman girls in a college dorm. The girls from well-to-do families pledged the top-tier sororities on campus, pursued lightweight majors like fashion design or marketing, and focused on finding a wealthy, well-connected guy to marry. The less privileged girls who tried to mimic them tended to crash and burn. They didn't get bids anywhere or they couldn't afford the dues. When partying interfered with their grades, they lost scholarships, so they started working part-time, which left even less time to get their grades up and ended up leaving school altogether - either because their grades were too low or they just couldn't afford the tuition. So while the wealthy girls, by their mid-20s, were planning their weddings and/or selling high-end real estate or doing interior decorating, their prole counterparts often hadn't even finished college yet and were working minimum wage jobs, heavily in debt and patching together a degree with part-time community college courses.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This is very interesting, as it seems to be the opposite in my experiences.

In my town, it seems that all the Republican kids are the ones who drink, smoke, do drugs, have sex, party hard, etc. and many have "cool" parents that will actually drink and smoke with them, fully permitting them to have the freedom to do these things. It seems that all the Democratic kids are the ones who have more conservative personalities that are less thrill-seeking and more cautious than the GOPers.

This may also have a lot to do with class and race, as the Republican kids are white and middle/upper-middle class, while the Democratic kids are white/black/Asian/Hispanic and more concentrated in the regular middle class range of income.

I don't see much difference in terms of academics, as the Dem kids get higher grades while Repubs tend to be more into extracurriculars (athletic and academic) and work.

Then again, my town is pretty homogenous, and my upbringing between a more permissive, Republican dad and ultra-strict, Asian, liberal independent mother has pushed me to have moderate political views despite a deeply conservative personality.

I'd like to see more studies that have larger sample sizes, with detailed demographic information as well.

Now this is quite surprising(the stuff in bold).  It's interesting that kids with liberal political views have conservative personalities.  What's also interesting is that the NWI suburbs in Chicago (where I see you live) don't strike me as that different from Waukesha County where Elections Guy lives, but the experiences seem quite different.

Clarko95, that was a very good counterexample.  It would be interesting to see what kind of places demographically have that pattern within the community.  I would guess areas with high income, high Asian population, and close proximity to poorer or more urban areas.

That's less a political affiliation thing and more a socioeconomic class thing - the politics may be correlated with the socioeconomic class but it's not what's driving the behavior.

Ostensibly, an upper/upper-middle-class white kid has more "margin for error" in their behavior. If they get arrested for underage drinking, their parents can easily afford to bail them out and maybe pull some strings with the local authorities. They don't necessarily need to do well in school because they don't need to get scholarships to college - their parents can pay full fare. They don't need to stand out in college because they can use family connections to get a job afterwards.

By contrast, the working class striver has virtually no margin for error. They need scholarships for college. Their parents can't save the day if they screw up. They can't fall back on working for daddy's company if they don't succeed academically.

It reminds me of a book that came out recently called Paying for the Party. It compared the trajectories of freshman girls in a college dorm. The girls from well-to-do families pledged the top-tier sororities on campus, pursued lightweight majors like fashion design or marketing, and focused on finding a wealthy, well-connected guy to marry. The less privileged girls who tried to mimic them tended to crash and burn. They didn't get bids anywhere or they couldn't afford the dues. When partying interfered with their grades, they lost scholarships, so they started working part-time, which left even less time to get their grades up and ended up leaving school altogether - either because their grades were too low or they just couldn't afford the tuition. So while the wealthy girls, by their mid-20s, were planning their weddings and/or selling high-end real estate or doing interior decorating, their prole counterparts often hadn't even finished college yet and were working minimum wage jobs, heavily in debt and patching together a degree with part-time community college courses.

     Considering the classism inherent to the education industry, the idea that it carries any realistic opportunity for upward mobility is a particularly cruel lie, and doubly so with the gross overproduction and massively inflated tuition buoyed by easy-to-obtain federal loans. Really, skilled trades are a much better option for someone looking to move up in the world.

[GaussLaw]

This is very interesting, as it seems to be the opposite in my experiences.

In my town, it seems that all the Republican kids are the ones who drink, smoke, do drugs, have sex, party hard, etc. and many have "cool" parents that will actually drink and smoke with them, fully permitting them to have the freedom to do these things. It seems that all the Democratic kids are the ones who have more conservative personalities that are less thrill-seeking and more cautious than the GOPers.

This may also have a lot to do with class and race, as the Republican kids are white and middle/upper-middle class, while the Democratic kids are white/black/Asian/Hispanic and more concentrated in the regular middle class range of income.

I don't see much difference in terms of academics, as the Dem kids get higher grades while Repubs tend to be more into extracurriculars (athletic and academic) and work.

Then again, my town is pretty homogenous, and my upbringing between a more permissive, Republican dad and ultra-strict, Asian, liberal independent mother has pushed me to have moderate political views despite a deeply conservative personality.

I'd like to see more studies that have larger sample sizes, with detailed demographic information as well.

Now this is quite surprising(the stuff in bold).  It's interesting that kids with liberal political views have conservative personalities.  What's also interesting is that the NWI suburbs in Chicago (where I see you live) don't strike me as that different from Waukesha County where Elections Guy lives, but the experiences seem quite different.

Clarko95, that was a very good counterexample.  It would be interesting to see what kind of places demographically have that pattern within the community.  I would guess areas with high income, high Asian population, and close proximity to poorer or more urban areas.

That's less a political affiliation thing and more a socioeconomic class thing - the politics may be correlated with the socioeconomic class but it's not what's driving the behavior.

Ostensibly, an upper/upper-middle-class white kid has more "margin for error" in their behavior. If they get arrested for underage drinking, their parents can easily afford to bail them out and maybe pull some strings with the local authorities. They don't necessarily need to do well in school because they don't need to get scholarships to college - their parents can pay full fare. They don't need to stand out in college because they can use family connections to get a job afterwards.

By contrast, the working class striver has virtually no margin for error. They need scholarships for college. Their parents can't save the day if they screw up. They can't fall back on working for daddy's company if they don't succeed academically.

It reminds me of a book that came out recently called Paying for the Party. It compared the trajectories of freshman girls in a college dorm. The girls from well-to-do families pledged the top-tier sororities on campus, pursued lightweight majors like fashion design or marketing, and focused on finding a wealthy, well-connected guy to marry. The less privileged girls who tried to mimic them tended to crash and burn. They didn't get bids anywhere or they couldn't afford the dues. When partying interfered with their grades, they lost scholarships, so they started working part-time, which left even less time to get their grades up and ended up leaving school altogether - either because their grades were too low or they just couldn't afford the tuition. So while the wealthy girls, by their mid-20s, were planning their weddings and/or selling high-end real estate or doing interior decorating, their prole counterparts often hadn't even finished college yet and were working minimum wage jobs, heavily in debt and patching together a degree with part-time community college courses.

     Considering the classism inherent to the education industry, the idea that it carries any realistic opportunity for upward mobility is a particularly cruel lie, and doubly so with the gross overproduction and massively inflated tuition buoyed by easy-to-obtain federal loans. Really, skilled trades are a much better option for someone looking to move up in the world.

Indeed.

My father always argued, and I concur, that fields like engineering, accounting, and medicine should be renamed "trades" and be studied in trade schools alongside plumbing, carpentry, etc.  He said the universities should be for those pursuing a phD and for serious academic research and that fewer people should go.

It is deeply ironic that in very liberal universities, there is an extremely anti-egalitarian system in place in many ways as IndyTX pointed out.  Part of the problem is that universities need to either focus on getting kids jobs upon graduation or get out of the game entirely.

[DC Al Fine]

This is very interesting, as it seems to be the opposite in my experiences.

In my town, it seems that all the Republican kids are the ones who drink, smoke, do drugs, have sex, party hard, etc. and many have "cool" parents that will actually drink and smoke with them, fully permitting them to have the freedom to do these things. It seems that all the Democratic kids are the ones who have more conservative personalities that are less thrill-seeking and more cautious than the GOPers.

This may also have a lot to do with class and race, as the Republican kids are white and middle/upper-middle class, while the Democratic kids are white/black/Asian/Hispanic and more concentrated in the regular middle class range of income.

I don't see much difference in terms of academics, as the Dem kids get higher grades while Repubs tend to be more into extracurriculars (athletic and academic) and work.

Then again, my town is pretty homogenous, and my upbringing between a more permissive, Republican dad and ultra-strict, Asian, liberal independent mother has pushed me to have moderate political views despite a deeply conservative personality.

I'd like to see more studies that have larger sample sizes, with detailed demographic information as well.

Now this is quite surprising(the stuff in bold).  It's interesting that kids with liberal political views have conservative personalities.  What's also interesting is that the NWI suburbs in Chicago (where I see you live) don't strike me as that different from Waukesha County where Elections Guy lives, but the experiences seem quite different.

Clarko95, that was a very good counterexample.  It would be interesting to see what kind of places demographically have that pattern within the community.  I would guess areas with high income, high Asian population, and close proximity to poorer or more urban areas.

That's less a political affiliation thing and more a socioeconomic class thing - the politics may be correlated with the socioeconomic class but it's not what's driving the behavior.

Ostensibly, an upper/upper-middle-class white kid has more "margin for error" in their behavior. If they get arrested for underage drinking, their parents can easily afford to bail them out and maybe pull some strings with the local authorities. They don't necessarily need to do well in school because they don't need to get scholarships to college - their parents can pay full fare. They don't need to stand out in college because they can use family connections to get a job afterwards.

By contrast, the working class striver has virtually no margin for error. They need scholarships for college. Their parents can't save the day if they screw up. They can't fall back on working for daddy's company if they don't succeed academically.

It reminds me of a book that came out recently called Paying for the Party. It compared the trajectories of freshman girls in a college dorm. The girls from well-to-do families pledged the top-tier sororities on campus, pursued lightweight majors like fashion design or marketing, and focused on finding a wealthy, well-connected guy to marry. The less privileged girls who tried to mimic them tended to crash and burn. They didn't get bids anywhere or they couldn't afford the dues. When partying interfered with their grades, they lost scholarships, so they started working part-time, which left even less time to get their grades up and ended up leaving school altogether - either because their grades were too low or they just couldn't afford the tuition. So while the wealthy girls, by their mid-20s, were planning their weddings and/or selling high-end real estate or doing interior decorating, their prole counterparts often hadn't even finished college yet and were working minimum wage jobs, heavily in debt and patching together a degree with part-time community college courses.

That was an excellent book.

As others have noted, the poor often have to become Puritans to move up in the world. I often wonder if intelligent poors would be better served if they were told to dream of a college experience for their kids and go to trade school.