Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| reply to kamm
Re: For Me....
I bumped into the guy I bought my house from 'not too long ago'. When I first met him to talk about the place I mentioned there was no cable or roof antenna, and this is rural area with maybe four OTA channels of low quality.
He said he wouldn't let his kids (three) watch TV. They had a dialup connection and could use that from time to time.
FF to 'not too long ago'. All three of his kids received scholarships to college - one of them a cream of the crop school. All THREE. I found it illuminating to say the least.
Of course, you can't blame it all on TV; a great deal of credit goes to the parents (and the kids), but I distinctly remember him saying the kids read books from the library rather than watch TV. You can't deny the connection.
-- |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
 ·Verizon FIOS
| TV isn't so bad as much as limiting the viewing of it. Growing up, I never really liked sitting there, glued to stupid programming (sitcoms are mindless).
But I do enjoy the educational channels (NatGeo HD, SciHD, HistoryChannel HD...). I can't justify +$30/mth for limited programming (and viewing) when I enjoy Netflix better.
And with Spring/Summertime coming, I'll watch even less.
Now, if someone had a pay-as-you-watch model that was effectively cheap...Say $10/mth... I'm in!
--
Weeeeeeee! |
|
joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA
 ·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Titus Pullo
said by Titus Pullo  :Of course, you can't blame it all on TV; a great deal of credit goes to the parents (and the kids), but I distinctly remember him saying the kids read books from the library rather than watch TV. You can't deny the connection. -- The strongest correlation (with scholastic success) is for reading. Second is the amount of time spent actually talking to parents. Doing enough of those two doesn't leave time to veg out in front of the TV. I agree in full with your post.
On a side note;
I think if all parents managed to put a treadmill in front of the TV, and with a minimum speed allowed, told their kids they can watch all they want, that years from now there'd be a strange correlation between good health linked to high TV watching. |
|
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
West Chester, PA
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | said by joetaxpayer :said by Titus Pullo :Of course, you can't blame it all on TV; a great deal of credit goes to the parents (and the kids), but I distinctly remember him saying the kids read books from the library rather than watch TV. You can't deny the connection. -- The strongest correlation (with scholastic success) is for reading. Second is the amount of time spent actually talking to parents. Doing enough of those two doesn't leave time to veg out in front of the TV. I agree in full with your post. On a side note; I think if all parents managed to put a treadmill in front of the TV, and with a minimum speed allowed, told their kids they can watch all they want, that years from now there'd be a strange correlation between good health linked to high TV watching. Absolutely agree. We made/make it a point to read to our kids. They have more books than shelf-space to put them on, and my oldest kids have taken to grabbing books from me and my wife. We even set up a special bookshelf for them - basically they're books that belong to either me or my wife, but which are appropriate for them to read. They know that anything that's on that shelf is fair game, and they don't need to ask permission to read it (now if I can only teach my oldest to actually put the books BACK, we'd be on to something  ). Any other books of ours require permission from us for them to read.
BTW, as a correlary to what you wrote - kids follow your example. Want them to do well in school? Get them into reading (my kids all have voracious appetites for books). Want to instill that love for reading in them? Then YOU need to read. My kids see me and my wife reading stuff all the time - books, magazines, newspapers, even stuff on line. We love to read, and it passed on to them. We don't just read to them (the younger ones that is), but they see us reading for our own entertainment too.
One last point - regarding your conversation item (talking with your kids) - another thing that we stress on this front - eating together. There are definitely activities that, from time to time, get in the way of sitting down together, but whenever possible we make it a point to ALL sit down to dinner at the same time. Eating on the go is strongly discouraged, unless you have no choice. Want to have those conversations with your kids? You need to eat with them. Heck, we'll even have dinner at off-times to adjust for schedules - one night we'll eat at 5:00... the next at 7:00. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to Titus Pullo
said by Titus Pullo :FF to 'not too long ago'. All three of his kids received scholarships to college - one of them a cream of the crop school. All THREE. I found it illuminating to say the least. What's the difference. They may as well have sat in front of the tube 24x7. It's not like the economy will be out of the toilet by the time they graduate. They'll be lucky to find a job flipping burgers and/or scrubbing the toilets of bailed out bank and automotive shareholders because this country is on the fasttrack to a 3rd world shithole.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| reply to cableties
said by cableties :TV isn't so bad as much as limiting the viewing of it. Growing up, I never really liked sitting there, glued to stupid programming (sitcoms are mindless). But I do enjoy the educational channels (NatGeo HD, SciHD, HistoryChannel HD...). I can't justify +$30/mth for limited programming (and viewing) when I enjoy Netflix better. And with Spring/Summertime coming, I'll watch even less. Now, if someone had a pay-as-you-watch model that was effectively cheap...Say $10/mth... I'm in! TV are for the lazy coach potato
Internet are for those who have the brain capacity to think, reason,learn and willing to do complicated thing for enjoyment |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by jadebangle :said by cableties :TV isn't so bad as much as limiting the viewing of it. Growing up, I never really liked sitting there, glued to stupid programming (sitcoms are mindless). But I do enjoy the educational channels (NatGeo HD, SciHD, HistoryChannel HD...). I can't justify +$30/mth for limited programming (and viewing) when I enjoy Netflix better. And with Spring/Summertime coming, I'll watch even less. Now, if someone had a pay-as-you-watch model that was effectively cheap...Say $10/mth... I'm in! TV are for the lazy coach potato Internet are for those who have the brain capacity to think, reason,learn and willing to do complicated thing for enjoyment And how do you categorize people that watch Tv and also use the internet?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA | Thinking couch potatoes? (Granted, I'm in that segment so I probably shouldn't talk.  ) |
|
