Are Chinese Mothers Superior?

[Puppycow]

Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior
By AMY CHUA (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1)

A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

I'm speechless. :eye-poppi

There's also an online poll:
Which style of parenting is best for children?
Permissive Western parenting
Demanding Eastern parenting
No "planet X" option I'm afraid.

[Damien Evans]

Yeah, she's an insane control freak.

[piojunbabia]

a very subjective opinion. She thinks Chinese are the only one who does that.

[AnnoyingPony]

I know a girl who has parents like that. They are constantly mad at her for not measuring up to their ridiculously high standards and frequently tell her that they wish she had never been born. The girl is barely allowed to do ANYTHING. She's not happy at all, and she really dreads being at home because her parents are just that mean.

[rjh01]

Many Chinese have only one child. So the budget, both financial and time, goes all to that one child, who must not be allowed to fail. In other societies most couples have two or more children. That means that a parent can spend much less time on each child. On the other hand the children can spend time with each other.

I wonder how many Chinese children do not get an A for most results? Do they give them out as standard? The article almost implies that. Otherwise most chinese children would go home to screaming parents whenever they take results home.

Can Chinese people work as a team? If not they would be worthless in any skilled workforce.

[MG1962]

Yeah and if the Chinese are so smart how come they never invented a way to eat custard?

[Puppycow]

a very subjective opinion. She thinks Chinese are the only one who does that.

To be fair, she does say this in her essay:
I'm using the term "Chinese mother" loosely. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents who qualify too. Conversely, I know some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are not Chinese mothers, by choice or otherwise. I'm also using the term "Western parents" loosely. Western parents come in all varieties.

[drkitten]

I'm speechless. :eye-poppi

There's also an online poll:

No "planet X" option I'm afraid.

Well, Ms. Chua is right -- parental involvement is one of the best predictors of success in school.

Speaking as a college professor, however,.... I'm willing to bet that Ms. Chua is going to be in for a serious shock when Sophia and Louisa crash and burn at whatever top-tier college they've been sent to. I have to deal with these overinvolved "helicopter parents" a lot, and it's rarely a pleasant experience for them, for their children, or for me. (Or for the Dean, because I have a tendency to tell them, "well, if you don't like it, talk to the Dean and see if he's willing to intervene.")

There's a blurry line between involvement and overinvolvement. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that Ms. Chua will not praise her children for bringing home a B. I'm less so with the idea that she won't "allow" her daughter to play the flute or the drums.

[drkitten]

Many Chinese have only one child. So the budget, both financial and time, goes all to that one child, who must not be allowed to fail. In other societies most couples have two or more children. That means that a parent can spend much less time on each child. On the other hand the children can spend time with each other.

Erm,... by "Chinese" here read "Chinese-American." Ms. Chua lives in New Haven, CT.

[blutoski]

Erm,... by "Chinese" here read "Chinese-American." Ms. Chua lives in New Haven, CT.

Yeah, and this is not a new discussion. I remember reading a New Yorker article in the 1980s about this stereotype parenting, and at the time it was called a "Jewish Mother."

I don't think it's useful to use ethnicity as the basis for stereotypes, as there's too much variation within communities.

Parental involvement seems to be a bell curve with a few overinvolved parents and a few underinvolved parents and most somewhere inbetween. It's probable that different ethnicities would have their means slightly higher or lower, but overall the bulk of involvement is probably very similar.

[drkitten]

Parental involvement seems to be a bell curve with a few overinvolved parents and a few underinvolved parents and most somewhere inbetween. It's probable that different ethnicities would have their means slightly higher or lower, but overall the bulk of involvement is probably very similar.

I wish that were the case. One of the big problems facing the black community, in particular, is that the degree of parental involvement is so much less. Just as a really crude measure of parental involvement,... is the father there at all? (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107) Nationally, 67% of black children are in single-parent families; 40% of Latino children are, compared with 24% of "white" and 16 percent of Asian.

As another measure of parental involvement (http://www.usariseup.com/sticky-wicket-questions/race-ethnicity-factor-parental-involvement-child’s-education), 83% of white students in K-8 have parents who attend class events; 69% of black students (at 68% of Hispanic).

One key difference appears to be not only in the amount, but also in the style of involvement (http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-publications/african-american-and-chinese-american-parent-involvement-the-importance-of-race-class-and-culture) : "African-American parents believed strongly in home and school-based involvement and attempted to intervene inside their children's schools. While social class within the African-American community seemed to influence this pattern, African Americans were far more likely to seek school-based involvement than Chinese-American parents. Chinese-American parents, on the other hand, were extremely active in home-based involvement."

What Ms. Chua is talking about is therefore extremely typical of the Chinese-American approach to education -- her children are learning violin and piano (at home), but not allowed to participate in school-based activities like plays. Or, for that matter, "community"-based activities like sleepovers.

[Mark6]

Speaking as a college professor, however,.... I'm willing to bet that Ms. Chua is going to be in for a serious shock when Sophia and Louisa crash and burn at whatever top-tier college they've been sent to.
Or when they put down that damn violin and never, ever play it again.

The part which shocked me most was about "not allowing to select their own extracurricular activities" -- or "to play anything other than violin" (which is a subset of first). HOW THE HELL DOES SHE KNOW what exactly her children will be good at??

Growing up in Russia I had same situation with chess. If you are a Russian boy, especially a SMART Russian boy, it is unthinkable not to be good at chess. Now, I did not hate playing chess, in fact I rather liked it. But now I understand the only reason I liked it was because there were no other intellectually challenging games around. I enjoyed more devising chess with my own rules than to play traditional game. I had not played chess in more than 20 years and do not miss it at all. To significant distress of my father. (I don't think my mother ever cared.)

I do not see children raised like Dr. Chua's children ever becoming innovators like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. How would they ever think out of the box if their entire life is in the box?

[drkitten]

I do not see children raised like Dr. Chua's children ever becoming innovators like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. How would they ever think out of the box if their entire life is in the box?

I don't think Ms. (Dr.?) Chua wants her children to be like Gates or Jobs; the proverb "the nail [or stake] that sticks up gets hammered down" is Japanese, not Chinese, but still relevant. I think what Chua wants is her children to grow up to be high-end engineers working for Gates or Jobs, holding down comfortable jobs with comfortable and stable salaries. Innovation is risky, disruptive, and there's far too great a chance that her 30 year-old daughter will end up sleeping with her husband in the basement because her great plan for being the Internet's largest supplier of tuna fish sandwiches didn't pan out.

That's part of the cultural differences as well. If you ask a robotic game theorist whether he would rather have $1000 or a one-in-a-thousand shot at winning $1,000,000, he'd shrug and say "whatever." Most humans, though, would have a strong preference one way or another (and you can see it at work in Deal or No Deal).

I haven't run the studies, but I'd be willing to bet that more Chinese-Americans than Anglo-Americans would take the grand up front than the lottery ticket.

And I'll go double-or-nothing -- being an Anglo-American and therefore a gambling fool -- that Dr. Chua would take the grand.

[blutoski]

I wish that were the case. One of the big problems facing the black community, in particular, is that the degree of parental involvement is so much less. Just as a really crude measure of parental involvement,... is the father there at all? (http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107) Nationally, 67% of black children are in single-parent families; 40% of Latino children are, compared with 24% of "white" and 16 percent of Asian.

As another measure of parental involvement (http://www.usariseup.com/sticky-wicket-questions/race-ethnicity-factor-parental-involvement-child’s-education), 83% of white students in K-8 have parents who attend class events; 69% of black students (at 68% of Hispanic).

One key difference appears to be not only in the amount, but also in the style of involvement (http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-publications/african-american-and-chinese-american-parent-involvement-the-importance-of-race-class-and-culture) : "African-American parents believed strongly in home and school-based involvement and attempted to intervene inside their children's schools. While social class within the African-American community seemed to influence this pattern, African Americans were far more likely to seek school-based involvement than Chinese-American parents. Chinese-American parents, on the other hand, were extremely active in home-based involvement."

What Ms. Chua is talking about is therefore extremely typical of the Chinese-American approach to education -- her children are learning violin and piano (at home), but not allowed to participate in school-based activities like plays. Or, for that matter, "community"-based activities like sleepovers.

My guess is that you're probably talking about the US?

Here in Canada, it's not very predictive. Black students are perhaps even statistical overachievers here (mostly from Commonwealth colonies which have an entirely familiar approach to parental involvement in education). 30 years ago, I would have said that First Nations had a lower parental involvement education, but here in 2010, it's not really significant anymore.

Again: there will always be outliers, and if you're concentrating in the tails, you'll find some cultures better represented, but this is an incorrect way to identify cultural traits.

My research was fitness for cross-cultural adoption, and I'm aware that the stereotypes are out there. Families from different ethnicities can be scored on different scales such as independence/enmeshment and flexibility/rigidity, and plotted into a circumplex coordinate system. What we find is that there's statistical significance and outliers meet the stereotypes, but not a lot of clinical significance. That's all I'm describing.

[Darat]

Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior
By AMY CHUA (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1)



I'm speechless. :eye-poppi

There's also an online poll:

No "planet X" option I'm afraid.

Obviously being a liar was not on her "not allowed" list.

[blutoski]

I don't think Ms. (Dr.?) Chua wants her children to be like Gates or Jobs; the proverb "the nail [or stake] that sticks up gets hammered down" is Japanese, not Chinese, but still relevant. I think what Chua wants is her children to grow up to be high-end engineers working for Gates or Jobs, holding down comfortable jobs with comfortable and stable salaries. Innovation is risky, disruptive, and there's far too great a chance that her 30 year-old daughter will end up sleeping with her husband in the basement because her great plan for being the Internet's largest supplier of tuna fish sandwiches didn't pan out.

I think I'd like to see this confirmed with some sort of survey. My impression here in Vancouver is the opposite: that Chinese are quite comfortable with entrepreneurship.




That's part of the cultural differences as well. If you ask a robotic game theorist whether he would rather have $1000 or a one-in-a-thousand shot at winning $1,000,000, he'd shrug and say "whatever." Most humans, though, would have a strong preference one way or another (and you can see it at work in Deal or No Deal).

I haven't run the studies, but I'd be willing to bet that more Chinese-Americans than Anglo-Americans would take the grand up front than the lottery ticket.

And I'll go double-or-nothing -- being an Anglo-American and therefore a gambling fool -- that Dr. Chua would take the grand.

I'm not even sure there's a long-term plan. My impression is that these parents are driving their kids to achieve in specific ways, because that's their value system.

I did years and years of tutoring for highschool and undergraduate math and natural sciences. I observed that the prevailing helicopter parent's "goal" was pretty shaky. Get As in specific subjects so the kid is competitive for admissions to a good university, and subsequently, to be competitive for admissions to a profession like medicine or dentistry or commerce. Basically, they want to show off their kid the doctor or maybe an MBA running a multibillion dollar venture capital fund from headquarters in Hong Kong. I think they'd find an engineer daughter to be a total disappointment.



ETA: sorry, that was rambling. My point is that the parental goals seem to be personal, and that the kid is a mechanism for living vicariously and a personal/family asset to show off in the community.

The stereotype is demonstrated in Amy Tan's Joy Luck Club as she describes an anecdote about Waverly Jong's childhood as a chess champion.

[drkitten]

My guess is that you're probably talking about the US?

Of course. As was the article in the OP, so that's not surprising.


Here in Canada, it's not very predictive. Black students are perhaps even statistical overachievers here (mostly from Commonwealth colonies which have an entirely familiar approach to parental involvement in education). 30 years ago, I would have said that First Nations had a lower parental involvement education, but here in 2010, it's not really significant anymore.

Shrug. There's greater cultural homogeneity in Canada, especially if you just look at the English-speaking bits of it. (Well, if 90% is a "bit.") Canada has done a better job of embracing diversity than the United States in recent years, which has had the odd effect of allowing everyone to be more similar, because there's not as much ferocious guarding of "our" culture and keeping "them" out.

[Skwinty]

Ms Chua sounds like a chinese Mother Superior.:rolleyes:

[drkitten]

I think I'd like to see this confirmed with some sort of survey. My impression here in Vancouver is the opposite: that Chinese are quite comfortable with entrepreneurship.

How the hell do you expect a survey to determine what Dr. Chua wants of her children?

[Mark6]

I observed that the prevailing helicopter parent's "goal" was pretty shaky. Get As in specific subjects so the kid is competitive for admissions to a good university, and subsequently, to be competitive for admissions to a profession like medicine or dentistry or commerce. Basically, they want to show off their kid the doctor or maybe an MBA running a multibillion dollar venture capital fund from headquarters in Hong Kong. I think they'd find an engineer daughter to be a total disappointment.
"My son the doctor" mindset.

I understand where it comes from, but I always found it repellent. All of the West, and increasing Southeast Asia too, are long past the time where young people from non-priviledged background had a choice between medical school (if they worked like crazy) and life of manual labor. If your child likes snakes, he can be a herpetologist and actually enjoy what he is doing, instead of being a doctor who hates his job!

As a herpetologist he will make less money, but will be happier.

[JoelKatz]

David Bernstein wants to know why Jewish parents are generally considered to be among the most permissive, they their kids seem to do pretty well. I'm thinking it's the non-objectionable aspects of "Chinese parents" that accounts for their children's success rather than the more obviously insane ones.

[LibraryLady]

Is she saying that all Western parents are permissive? She never met my parents....

[blutoski]

How the hell do you expect a survey to determine what Dr. Chua wants of her children?

My impression is that you were basing her motives as a representative of a culture. (introduced by the Japanese quote about nails and hammers).

That's the part I was saying would benefit from better supporting evidence.

Sorry for not being clear about that.

[CMacDady]

*Click* "Mama always hangs up first"

[KingMerv00]

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama



So every Chinese student is valedictorian?

[fuelair]

I don't think Ms. (Dr.?) Chua wants her children to be like Gates or Jobs; the proverb "the nail [or stake] that sticks up gets hammered down" is Japanese, not Chinese, but still relevant. I think what Chua wants is her children to grow up to be high-end engineers working for Gates or Jobs, holding down comfortable jobs with comfortable and stable salaries. Innovation is risky, disruptive, and there's far too great a chance that her 30 year-old daughter will end up sleeping with her husband in the basement because her great plan for being the Internet's largest supplier of tuna fish sandwiches didn't pan out.


.

And as in the (supposed) old Chinese curse "MAY YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES!"

[Skeptic Ginger]

China has a serious problem with innovation. There is a draw back to the comfort of conformity.

[McHrozni]

I've seen the results this produces in at least one case. It's child abuse, not parenting. Certainly not "successful parenting" by any stretch of imagination.

McHrozni

[Dr. Keith]

Ms Chua sounds like a chinese Mother Superior.:rolleyes:

that's why I clicked on the thread!

Alas, there was nothing about a Chinese Mother Superior. Sad.

[Dr. Keith]

I've seen the results this produces in at least one case. It's child abuse, not parenting. Certainly not "successful parenting" by any stretch of imagination.

McHrozni

My roommate my first year in college was a textbook example of high pressure parenting all the way through high school. I know, we went to HS together. He kinda lost it once he was off the leash. It was frightening, really.

He wasn't Chinese.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, Ms. Chua is right -- parental involvement is one of the best predictors of success in school.

Speaking as a college professor, however,.... I'm willing to bet that Ms. Chua is going to be in for a serious shock when Sophia and Louisa crash and burn at whatever top-tier college they've been sent to. I have to deal with these overinvolved "helicopter parents" a lot, and it's rarely a pleasant experience for them, for their children, or for me. (Or for the Dean, because I have a tendency to tell them, "well, if you don't like it, talk to the Dean and see if he's willing to intervene.")

There's a blurry line between involvement and overinvolvement. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that Ms. Chua will not praise her children for bringing home a B. I'm less so with the idea that she won't "allow" her daughter to play the flute or the drums.

Wait until Sophia and Louisa meet frat boys and beer.

[LibraryLady]

Actually, I knew a family with a son and a daughter who were treated pretty much like this. Their father literally stood over them while they were doing their homework, pointing out their errors. The daughter hated piano and had to take it for five years. When the son got lower grades in high school than my brother, he was harrassed about it unceasingly.

The son committed suicide at age 28. The daughter, who was my best friend growing up, has not spoken to any childhood friends in years. The last time I called her, she was so full of hate and anger, I couldn't deal with her any more.

It was a tragic household.

[drkitten]

My impression is that you were basing her motives as a representative of a culture.

Ah. My apologies, then.

Chua is (quite obviously) at the extreme end of cultural variation -- obviously, if you notice how many Chinese (or Asian) flute players there are. They can't all be prevented from playing any instrument other than violin or piano.

But the overall cultural variation is quite real; for example, Asian American high school students in the SF Bay area have been documented to spend nearly half again as much time on homework as non-Asians; concommittantly, their high school GPAs are up to a quarter point higher. Forty percent of Asian-Americans have a college degree, compared to about 22% of "whites," and 11% of blacks.

You also shouldn't confuse entrepreneurship with "out of the box thinking," as I think you described it. Most entrepreneurs aren't especially innovative, which is good, as most entrepreneurship requires hard work rather than genius. You can run a damn good restaurant or travel agency by simply being better than your competition instead of really being different.

And, in fact, your examples show (some of) the difference between innovation and entrepreneurship; neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs hold college degrees; they dropped out of Harvard and Reed College, respectively, in order to pursue a much riskier business path. ("Woz" was a high school dropout as well.) Can you imagine Chua's probable reaction if her darling daughters announced that they were dropping out of college to start a company in a new and unproven field?

[Roboramma]

It seems to me that there's a happy middle between being an overbearing parent and being overly permissive. My parents let me do pretty much whatever I wanted as a kid and, well, I was pretty lazy. The thing is, if I'd had someone forcing me to do some of those things, I might actually have enjoyed them.

For instance, I took swimming lessons for a few years as a kid and enjoyed it, but one day I told my mom that I didn't want to sign up again for the next year, and she said, "okay, if that's what you want." I was just being lazy and later regretted not going. And now I can say it'd be cool if I had spent that time learning to be better swimmer than just watching TV.

As to the list in the OP, I would bet that some of those things contribute to a child's success and some don't. I doubt that learning to play piano and not liking it is more valuable than learning to play guitar and enjoying doing so.

Another anecdote from my own life, though: I found that when I was being lazy in school, not participating in class and not doing homework, I hated school, found myself confused in class, and was just bored. When I participated, listened, did the homework and kept up with class, I actually liked being there. For a parent to encourage that kind of participation, and even police it, may do more than make their children do well in school, it may also have the effect of making them enjoy it more. Of course, too demanding a workload, and too high expectations may have the opposite effect.

Simply stated, I think that there's value in encouraging children to have high expectations of themselves and the view that hard work is all that's necessary to achieve success. And I don't think children will often come to that on their own. But there is also value in many of the things that Dr Chua disparages: learning social skills through fun and relaxed interaction with other kids, play, having fun, experimenting to find what you like, pursuing those things about which you are passionate, and simply being able to relax.

A friend of mine and I were having a discussion a while ago, about his desire to have children. He is Korean-American and said that his parents drove him very hard. He found both value and loss in that approach: he has a strong work ethic, but he was also pushed into a field which he didn't find interesting, and says he wasted a good deal of his life unhappy. He's now running a game development company in china, and doing well, making less money that he could working for someone else back in the US, but happier for it. His view, which I found reasonable was this: encourage your children to excel at whatever they do, but let them decide what they are passionate about themselves.

[gumboot]

The sheer number of Chinese means it's basically statistically inevitable that they'll produce lots of "talented" kids. I'd like to see that they produce a greater percentage of these child prodigies than anyone else.

And I use the word "talent" here pretty loosely.

(If anyone else compares one of those supposed genius piano playing kids (who only ever plays someone else's music) to classical composers who were actually writing their own work at the same age I'm going to spew)

[Puppycow]

Here's another one from this genre:
Harvard Girl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Girl)

These ones made their daughter hold ice cubes in her hands until they turned purple to "build character."

[Eddie Dane]

China has a serious problem with innovation. There is a draw back to the comfort of conformity.

They'll get there.

First they must catch up through imitation. Once they've done that, I expect them to start innovating.

[Andrew Wiggin]

I see this sort of thing as a backlash against change. It was good enough for me, so it'll be good enough for you, even if I have to force you into it...

In a related note, I happened across something in a similar vein yesterday. This is a top ten list, the 'top ten most evil books of all time'. I think the author tried to sneak something through. Sandwiched between such works as the 'Malleus Malificarum' and 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is 'Democracy and Education' by John Dewey, with the explanation that it was this work of evil that convinced people that education wasn't about memorizing facts but about learning how to thing, as facts can change. The author of this piece believes that this view is very damaging to 'character'.

http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/47532-10-evil-books-of-all-time

I'd argue that a good education SHOULD prepare people to challenge facts, and that knowing facts is not one tenth as important as knowing how to find facts when neccesary.

[Andrew Wiggin]

They'll get there.

First they must catch up through imitation. Once they've done that, I expect them to start innovating.

They ARE innovating. They're the world leaders in innovation in industrial espionage. No one can steal your data quicker.

[BTMO]

I knew a Chinese nun once.

I wonder if she ever became a Chinese Mother Superior....?

[Puppycow]

http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/47532-10-evil-books-of-all-time

Ugh. What utter tripe. :rolleyes:

I think he made the list just so he could compare some books he doesn't like (and their authors) with Mein Kampf, the Protocols and the like.

And, as much as I don't like Behe, that isn't the most evil book of all time. Not by a long shot. It's just wrong, and largely irrelevant. Science deniers don't need his book as an excuse to deny science.

[xjx388]

My wife is Hispanic and was raised pretty much as described in the OP. Anything less than a 95 was punished with grounding, extra chores etc, but she was never physically punished. Plenty of verbal abuse though. I met her in the summer before her Senior year in HS and her parents had slightly let go the reins a little bit because they trusted her (dummies!). By the end of her Senior year, she was pregnant. However, the way they raised her may have been a big factor in her finishing college in 2.5 years (after the birth of our daughter) and getting through Med School. So, in my limited experience, there's got to be something to heavy-handed parenting styles. But then we get back to the age old nature vs. nurture question. No doubt my wife is a smart cookie, but would she have achieved as much if her parents hadn't pushed her?

[Mark6]

I see this sort of thing as a backlash against change. It was good enough for me, so it'll be good enough for you, even if I have to force you into it...
Very much so.

AFAIK, Confucius thought that string instuments were a stupid fad, and REAL music must be made with stone bells, as it always was.

Likewise my father thought that RPG's with fifty pages of tables and probabilistic calculations were for morons, and I should be playing chess. (He toned down his rhetoric when he found out all best students in my high school played D&D.)

Frankly, I am just opposite. I know world IS changing, and my children WILL engage in activities I do not an probably will not understand. To me it is not threatening at all.

[ElMondoHummus]

You know what? Even being Asian and part Chinese, I simply can't condone this. Maybe it's being a "western kid", but the notion of having such a dictatorial parent horrifies me. It seems so utterly possesive as well as limiting.

That said, it's possible that Chua could be wrongly extrapolating from insufficient data if her own children do well. And as much as this amazes me, there are some kids who, oddly enough, thrive when being so restricted. My mother has a friend who's an utter control freak; as a side note, she's a friend because she helped mom get through a difficult pregnancy - me - and mom loves her. Anyway, when said woman raised one of her nieces, she openly bragged to mom and mom's siblings about just how controlling she was over said niece. She of course didn't see things that way, but that's essentially what it was; it was the exact sort of attitude we see here in Chua's article.

Mom's not permissive, but holy jeebus, even she said she was taken aback by what her friend said.

Thing is, this niece loves her aunt. And on top of that, she seems to agree that that is the way for a kid to be raised. She's not damaged, timid, or anything... in fact, what's striking is just how incredibly normal and average she is. Fine, she's not some prodigy or insanely successful person either, but that's my point: The perceived extremes are that such overly dictatorial parenting is either damaging, or the recipe for creating incredible success, but this gal is as middle of the bell curve as you can get (minus minor eccentricities, such as actually obeying a 9pm curfew... as a 20 year old! :eye-poppi (that's back when I knew her; she's now out of college and presumably living on her own... Now that I'm thinking about her, I think I'll ask mom for an update)).

Either this is a funny form of Stockholm Syndrome ;), or kids-teens-young adults are more resillient than we give them credit for.

Of course I have to allow for the fact that I may be missing something. But that said, I think I have a legitimate datapoint for the existence of such children. I myself would've gone crazy rebellious under such parenthood. I honestly think such a parent would've driven me to actually commit bad acts in my teen years (as opposed to the normal, run of the mill high-school aged antics that I actually indulged in).

My ultimate point is that there are indeed parents across the spectrum, but children, too, are spread across a spectrum. And some would thrive under such parenting, while others would burst or go all bad. It just blows my mind how many potential problems can exist in the enterprise of parenthood because, what if you're suited for being a parent leaning towards one end of the spectrum, but your child is obviously suited for the other? My mind boggles at the weight of responsibility parents carry.

[HansMustermann]

Or when they put down that damn violin and never, ever play it again.

Bingo. I got put through something like that by my parents, although in their case it was physics that got shoved down my throat. As soon as I escaped that crap, I basically tried forgetting that physics even exists for the next 20 years.

Also, geesh, there's a part of me that instinctively cringes when reading about such stories. Far from making me go, "yeah, that's the right style of parenting", it makes me more like think, "child abuse".

Because, seriously, just like we keep talking each time bullying or whatnot comes up, abuse isn't only physical. And what she's describing in one place -- proudly, I must add -- is basically such abuse of her daughter that included not even letting her sleep or get food or water or go to the bathroom until she plays a tune right, even though she admits that it's a very hard part for someone young. And of course, yelling at said daughter until she lost her voice, and emotional blackmail.

_That_ is a parenting style to be proud of?

And generally what she's describing there is a glorified forced labour prison. Those are some kids which aren't effectively even allowed to have fun, or even their own desires and preferences. They have to grind all day to become the best at some arbitrary activity imposed upon them, and the only fun they're allowed to have is get praised when they get good at it. She's explicitly saying she overrides their children's desires and preferences, because she knows better what they should want. Etc.

And the degree of trying to make them socially dysfunctional is bewildering. They're not allowed to take part in pretty much any social activity, they're not allowed to have a boyfriend, they're not allowed to even take part in school activities like group plays, etc. W.T.H.?

Geeze, really, words fail me. If we don't allow parents to make their children dig in a mine so daddy can get his daily booze, then why do we allowed some kids to be made to grind the piano all day just so their mom can get her daily shot of feeling proud for someone else's achievements?

[HansMustermann]

Yeah, and this is not a new discussion. I remember reading a New Yorker article in the 1980s about this stereotype parenting, and at the time it was called a "Jewish Mother."

I'll just call it "idiot mother who thrives on bragging and compliments about what her child did." You know, instead of having her own frikken achievements.

If you've read the piece, there's even that payoff in there. The reward for acting like a monster to make Lulu play a difficult piece on the piano is when she, the mother, gets compliments from other parents for her daughter's playing that piece.

That's it, really. That's what it's about. Some idiot who can't put in the grind to have something of their own worth bragging about as an adult, makes their kid do an unholy grind that they can they brag about.

[HansMustermann]

My wife is Hispanic and was raised pretty much as described in the OP. Anything less than a 95 was punished with grounding, extra chores etc, but she was never physically punished. Plenty of verbal abuse though. I met her in the summer before her Senior year in HS and her parents had slightly let go the reins a little bit because they trusted her (dummies!). By the end of her Senior year, she was pregnant.

That actually reflects my experience too. After 18 years of having any kind of personality run over with a steamroller, so to speak, I didn't even know how to function without mommy or daddy or granny telling me what to do, or how to function in all but the most trivial social situation without them around. And a tendency to do the most stupid things just in case. If I had been a girl, I _would_ have gotten pregnant.

However, the way they raised her may have been a big factor in her finishing college in 2.5 years (after the birth of our daughter) and getting through Med School. So, in my limited experience, there's got to be something to heavy-handed parenting styles. But then we get back to the age old nature vs. nurture question. No doubt my wife is a smart cookie, but would she have achieved as much if her parents hadn't pushed her?

Wouldn't she?

I don't know your wife, but in my case there is exactly zero in what my parents shoved down my throat that is actually useful in my day job nowadays. Or in the MMO-style grind I had to do as a child, that even vaguely resembles any useful mode of solving real problems or thinking about new stuff.

If anything, the whole thing turned out to be a huge handicap that took me another decade to fully overcome. I essentially had no idea how to function in society or in a team. I had a reflex against having any kind of initiative, even to the extent of chucking the laundry in the washing machine, if mommy hadn't told me to and how, because I had had a very negative feedback to doing anything except what mommy tells me to. I still had a hard reflex against speaking to an adult, by now some actually younger than me, unless spoken to first. Elementary things that other children pick on the playground, were things I was still discovering with wide eyed surprise in the '30's.

Even the idea that the whole fun is grinding to be the best in something for the praise afterwards, as in the article, was actually a big shock to discover afterwards that it's not quite the way a real job or society works.

So is it actually that big an advantage to be pushed like that, at the expense of everything else?

[Lyrandar]

And I use the word "talent" here pretty loosely.

(If anyone else compares one of those supposed genius piano playing kids (who only ever plays someone else's music) to classical composers who were actually writing their own work at the same age I'm going to spew)

I'd like to second this point.

This style of parenting seems to emphasize improving ability through sheer hard work. It'll work, but even so, you won't manage to reach the same level that a true naturally talented person can reach. And I seriously question whether someone raised like this will have the time and space to find out for themselves what their natural talent is, so they can work on that and do something they might actually manage to be the very best in.

[quixotecoyote]

Geeze, really, words fail me. If we don't allow parents to make their children dig in a mine so daddy can get his daily booze, then why do we allowed some kids to be made to grind the piano all day just so their mom can get her daily shot of feeling proud for someone else's achievements?

Nicely done. I'd never thought about it like that before.

[George152]

Only a Chinese senior nun can be a Chinese mother superior. :-)

[technoextreme]

not play the piano or violin.
I know a Chinese person who played the violin and the piano. Last I knew he worked at CERN.Actually, I knew a family with a son and a daughter who were treated pretty much like this. Their father literally stood over them while they were doing their homework, pointing out their errors. The daughter hated piano and had to take it for five years. When the son got lower grades in high school than my brother, he was harrassed about it unceasingly.

The son committed suicide at age 28. The daughter, who was my best friend growing up, has not spoken to any childhood friends in years. The last time I called her, she was so full of hate and anger, I couldn't deal with her any more.

It was a tragic household.
Yeah... I've met every single stereotype you can think of in this regard. Then I knew a son of a scientist from Brookhaven National Laboratory who was so stilted that at one point my mother got really disturbed at the fact that he was so delighted that he was making birdhouses. He basically quit school to party and just crashed and burned in that regard. I also met a Chinese businessman who thought I was a shinning example for his son. Why I have no clue? I was an 17 year old engineering wannabe who while was smart wasn't exactly the brightest bulb around. That would have the honors of going to my friend who actually worked at CERN.

[themusicteacher]

The sheer number of Chinese means it's basically statistically inevitable that they'll produce lots of "talented" kids. I'd like to see that they produce a greater percentage of these child prodigies than anyone else.

And I use the word "talent" here pretty loosely.

(If anyone else compares one of those supposed genius piano playing kids (who only ever plays someone else's music) to classical composers who were actually writing their own work at the same age I'm going to spew)

So Yo-Yo Ma is just another hack? Not everyone composes and how is that the sole measure of musical "genius" anyhow? I admire people who have ideas and compose and share their music with the world but some (many?) of them are/were not great performers and need others to interpret and bring to life their vision. Often times, a great performer will show the composer whole new facets of their work they did not see before. I fail to see how composition is the ultimate qualifier of musical genius. This sort of simplifying of musical thought is reductivist and insulting.

[Eddie Dane]

They ARE innovating. They're the world leaders in innovation in industrial espionage. No one can steal your data quicker.

My wife used to work for a big tech company.

When Chinese suppliers were visiting, they had a staff member assigned to literally stand next to them the whole day and keep them away from computers and file folders.

(Some of the products had military uses)

[mike3]

"get any grade less than an A"

So if the child simply doesn't have the innate talent to succeed at an "A" level on that course, then what?!

[drkitten]

"get any grade less than an A"

So if the child simply doesn't have the innate talent to succeed at an "A" level on that course, then what?!

In the modern educational system -- which could have been designed for helicopter parents, frankly -- that's not an issue. Between grade inflation, which makes a B an average or below-average grade, and the emphasis (made worse with NCLB) on testable skills, mere hard work and rote memorization will allow almost any child to get an A in almost any class.

[Vorticity]

That article was both horrifying and a revelation to me, and I want to explain the latter.

I am white. I was born in 1976, and grew up in a suburb of Los Angles which was middle to upper-middle-class and had a very heavy Chinese population. Most of the families had come from either Hong Kong or Taiwan, and the kids were either born here or came here when they were no more than a few years old. At my high school, for instance, the racial breakdown was approximately 25% white, 25% various stripes of Hispanic, and 50% ethnic Chinese. I even learned a small amount of Chinese (mostly curses) by osmosis.

Just about all of my friends were Chinese. But I was never allowed to go to any of their houses. It was not until near the end of high school that I found out why: My Chinese friends were not allowed to have any friends who were not Chinese, and I was a secret they needed to keep from their parents. My Chinese friends told me that their parents were very prejudiced against anyone who was not Chinese. Non-Chinese were considered inferior, and contact between their kids and a white student such as myself would supposedly drag down their kids, and make them "common."

Anyway, the Chinese kids were very driven academically. During elementary and junior high school (for non-US readers, that's between the ages of about 5 to 13), they would attend special Chinese schools during the hours that they were not at the regular school that I attended with them. These Chinese schools would typically start when the regular school day ended, and sometimes go far into the night, as well as all day Saturday and Sunday.

At our high school, there were three types of classes in each subject: The regular class, the "dummy" class, and the advanced placement class. The Chinese kids and I took all advanced placement classes. At the beginning, there were several other white kids in those classes, and a few Hispanic kids. By the end of the first year, however, these others had fallen by the wayside, leaving only me and all the Chinese kids. I guess I had a small dose of what I now realize they were experiencing at home daily: My mother (Jewish mother stereotype) pushed me very hard academically. So I, and all of the other kids in these AP classes invariably got all A's.

Here's the mystery, which has bothered me for years, and which this article finally explained to me:

Our high school had a grade point average system whereby an A in one of the regular classes (or a "dummy" class) would count as a 4.0 towards the GPA. An A in an AP class, on the other hand, would count as a 5.0. As a result, at the end of senior year, there were 31 people (me and 30 Chinese) who had all attained an identical, highest GPA. I think it was something like 4.68. The school was at a loss. Who would they choose as valedictorian? Finally, it was decided that there would simply be 31 valedictorians. I was cool with that. I mean, who cares, right?

Massive uproar from the 30 Chinese students. This will not stand! They actually drafted a petition, which they asked me to sign. I read it carefully. It first said that having more than one valedictorian was unacceptable. It went on to say that if there was no way of distinguishing between the 31 of us, the school administration should actually choose one of us at random, and make that person the sole valedictorian. Kinda strange so far, but here's where it gets really weird: Their final point was that this whole random arrangement should be forever kept secret. No one should ever know (especially parents) that there had ever been more than one valedictorian.

I thought this whole thing was stupid and didn't sign the letter. Everyone else did, however, and so the admin went along with it. Some kid (not me) was randomly chosen as valedictorian, and we all graduated and went on our merry way.

For years, I have always wondered why they were so adamant that there be just one valedictorian, to the point of using an arbitrary and meaningless random procedure (I think they used D&D dice) to ensure the point. No one would ever explain it to me. Now I know. From the OP article:


Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

...

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama


The number one student. If you're not the valedictorian, you're not the number one student, and must therefore be punished. Furthermore, if you are one of many valedictorians, you also were not the number one student. It's like that David Merrick quote: “It is not enough for me to win. My enemies must lose.”

If there are 31 valedictorians, each and every one of them (except me, I suppose) would be punished for not "beating" the 30 others, just the same as if they had not been any sort of valedictorian at all. If only one person is to be randomly chosen as the "one true valedictorian", then at least each of them has a 1 in 31 chance of not being punished, which is better than nothing. This also explains the bizarre point about keeping this whole random thing secret: No one can every know that you have suffered the shame of tying 30 others to be "best."

In addition to explaining this life-long mystery, this article fills me with sorrow. It makes me understand the misery my friends must have been suffering in the homelife I was never permitted to see.

[BTMO]

That article was both horrifying and a revelation to me, and I want to explain the latter.

-snip-

In addition to explaining this life-long mystery, this article fills me with sorrow. It makes me understand the misery my friends must have been suffering in the homelife I was never permitted to see.

What an absolutely fascinating post! Thanks for posting that.

(I was going to put an emoticon here, but quite frankly, have no idea which one is appropriate!)

[roger]

My roommate in college had a Chinese girlfriend (now his wife of over 20 years). She practically lived with us, and so I got to know her very well. Her sister came to the same college, and was around often.

They were raised much the same way. The roommate's gf pretty much took to it, espousing the same values and outlook, tripled majored (math, EE, and comp sci), and actually strived to graduate early, because she wanted to get out into the "real" world, make money, etc. She was the kind of personality that chafed at being forced to read fiction because it was just a made up story, and wasn't going to make her money, so what was the point. I say that because I view that as her personality, not as a result of how she raised. She was just lucky that her personality fit in very well with how she was raised, so far as I can determine it. (it was a topic we talked a lot about - Chinese vs American, etc., probably mostly because she was a mother hen that spent a lot of time chastising the 'boys' for various laziness or wastes of time :) ).

Her sister wanted to be a dancer. Oh my.

You can imagine the hell her life was. I forget her major, chosen for her, of course, but it was a hard science. She was apt enough at it, but completely miserable.

There are always going to be kids that take to that kind of upbringing, but that they do is not evidence that the upbringing is not damaging.

[Jeff Corey]

It's an extremely controlling position. I wonder how she has the time to enforce all those rules. She must not have a full time job, unless you consider policing your child to be a 24/7 task until they graduate from Harvard Business School or the equivalent.
It was not my way at all.

[Father Dagon]

I think that's its a recipe for disaster, or at least a recipe for very, very unintended consequences.

Wasn't there a thread here on JREF Forum about white and black students (both are anglosaxons, just ask Gunnar Myrdal ;)) complaining about how the asians had too good grades because they didn't participate in the extracurricular activities, but studied?

But let's for the sake of the discussion say that asians are immune to the law of diminishing returns. If they just eat and sleep right, they can pretty much do anything. But even if they studied for 60- or 80-hrs a week they still wouldn't rise to the top. Why?

Because if you want to be The Expert, you should devote all your efforts to that. But The Expert is always overrated, often replacable and always suspectible to changes in technology.

But if you want to rise to the top, just being good at one subject won't cut it. You need to know how organizations work, maybe some history of technology and definitley done some networking at the extracurricular activities and the student pubs.

So a person who's expert at landing gears and nothing else is hireable. But a person that has a good general knowledge of airplanes, has a private pilot license and partaked in some extracurricular activities belonges definitley in management.

And why the fixation on violin and piano? True, the piano is a good general instrument. But how would she react if one of her kids brought home a Minimoog? Or if a non-chinese plays the guzheng? :cool:

Interesting post, Vorticity. What does your chinese schoolmates do for a living? Have they risen to management?

And this is interesting: The 6 Worst Parts of Being Chinese (Not In The Stereotypes) (http://www.cracked.com/article_18603_the-6-worst-parts-being-chinese-not-in-stereotypes.html)

[Vorticity]

"Mothers superior"?

Jumped the gun.

[drkitten]

But let's for the sake of the discussion say that asians are immune to the law of diminishing returns. If they just eat and sleep right, they can pretty much do anything. But even if they studied for 60- or 80-hrs a week they still wouldn't rise to the top. Why?

Because if you want to be The Expert, you should devote all your efforts to that. But The Expert is always overrated, often replacable and always suspectible to changes in technology.

But if you want to rise to the top, just being good at one subject won't cut it. You need to know how organizations work, maybe some history of technology and definitley done some networking at the extracurricular activities and the student pubs.

I'd like to know what high schools you know of that have pubs.

For that matter, I'd like to know what high schools you know of where networking will help you in your career.

Bear in mind that most people will not rise to the top anyway; it takes luck as well as skill, and by definition, most people aren't that lucky. But "the top" also isn't a position you typically arrive at in one leap. You do need skills, and you need whatever skills it takes to position yourself to the next level.

The next level after primary school is typically secondary school, unless you plan to be a child actor. The next level after secondary school is typically college, and after college is increasingly likely to be graduate school.

The way to get into college is not by networking with your fellow students and not by being in yearbook club and marching band. I don't especially like that situation, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize that fifty additional points on the SAT is worth considerably more than joining the forensics club at most university admissions departments. And no one gets into an M.D. program on the basis of how well they dance.


So a person who's expert at landing gears and nothing else is hireable. But a person that has a good general knowledge of airplanes, has a private pilot license and partaked in some extracurricular activities belonges definitley in management.

... but unless they know about landing gears, they might not be hireable in the first place. There's a whole bunch of management skills that they would need that you didn't describe there.

[Roboramma]

The way to get into college is not by networking with your fellow students and not by being in yearbook club and marching band. I don't especially like that situation, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize that fifty additional points on the SAT is worth considerably more than joining the forensics club at most university admissions departments. And no one gets into an M.D. program on the basis of how well they dance.

That's certainly true, but social skills are also certainly valuable in the real world. They are valuable skills to have when networking does become an important contributor to success, they are likely important in management and sales type jobs, and in the business world in general. And there's an argument to be made that social skills are easier to acquire in youth than in adulthood: that denying children a chance to engage in social situations and learn those skills early may mean that those skills will never be able to fully develop, just like they'll never be able to master a second language as well in adulthood if they aren't given the opportunity to learn it in youth.

Of course, I say "there's an argument to be made" because, well, I don't actually have data to back up that guess.

[drkitten]

That's certainly true, but social skills are also certainly valuable in the real world.

Oh, absolutely, and that's one of the things that's so horrifying about Chua's parenting style.

She's mistaking good grades (and violin playing) for personal and social development.

I knew a child prodigy growing up. He was one of these hyperaccelerated geniuses who graduated from college at the age of 15 or something; I was among his closest friends because, frankly, he didn't have many friends.


Of course, I say "there's an argument to be made" because, well, I don't actually have data to back up that guess.

I think Julian Stanley at Hopkins has a lot of data on that.

[gumboot]

So Yo-Yo Ma is just another hack? Not everyone composes and how is that the sole measure of musical "genius" anyhow? I admire people who have ideas and compose and share their music with the world but some (many?) of them are/were not great performers and need others to interpret and bring to life their vision. Often times, a great performer will show the composer whole new facets of their work they did not see before. I fail to see how composition is the ultimate qualifier of musical genius. This sort of simplifying of musical thought is reductivist and insulting.


The stereotype child musical prodigy does nothing more than play some piece of classical music on a piano. They haven't arranged anything. They're contributing nothing to the work. They're a mimic.

I have no problem with admiring their technical proficiency, but comparing them to genuine artists who have created work of their own (be that a composer or a gifted arranger) is ridiculous. It's like comparing a Xerox to Shakespeare.

[gumboot]

Thing is, this niece loves her aunt. And on top of that, she seems to agree that that is the way for a kid to be raised. She's not damaged, timid, or anything... in fact, what's striking is just how incredibly normal and average she is. Fine, she's not some prodigy or insanely successful person either, but that's my point: The perceived extremes are that such overly dictatorial parenting is either damaging, or the recipe for creating incredible success, but this gal is as middle of the bell curve as you can get (minus minor eccentricities, such as actually obeying a 9pm curfew... as a 20 year old! :eye-poppi (that's back when I knew her; she's now out of college and presumably living on her own... Now that I'm thinking about her, I think I'll ask mom for an update)).


I think you and the writer in the OP might actually be jumping the gun here a bit with your measure of impact. Surely the true measure of how good a job a parent did was how well the child does in life as an adult.

What is more impressive? A seemingly gifted 14 year old, or a 90 year old who lived a long, happy and fulfilling life, achieved a great deal, and themself produced a family of likewise successful people?

In my experience children who are controlled too much by their parents tend to struggle once they're outside the control of their parents, because they never learned how to manage things for themselves. That's when the real damage of such an upbringing emerges.

[Pythonic]

Well, Ms. Chua is right -- parental involvement is one of the best predictors of success in school.

Speaking as a college professor, however,.... I'm willing to bet that Ms. Chua is going to be in for a serious shock when Sophia and Louisa crash and burn at whatever top-tier college they've been sent to. I have to deal with these overinvolved "helicopter parents" a lot, and it's rarely a pleasant experience for them, for their children, or for me. (Or for the Dean, because I have a tendency to tell them, "well, if you don't like it, talk to the Dean and see if he's willing to intervene.")

There's a blurry line between involvement and overinvolvement. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that Ms. Chua will not praise her children for bringing home a B. I'm less so with the idea that she won't "allow" her daughter to play the flute or the drums.

However, success in school has not been a good predictor of success in business. It's been pointed out many times how the captains of industry are predominantly C students. There is a huge disconnect between the skills needed to do well in school and to do well in business. And I'm sure you're aware of the work by Daniel Goleman.

[elipse]

There's actually a bunch of research on this, done on kids in western countries. The parenting styles are divided into four categories:

Authoritarian, which is exactly what the "Chinese mother" is

Permissive, which is basically hippie parenting where you want to be "friends" with your kids

Uninvolved, which is just what it sounds like, and frankly boarders on neglect

Authoritative, which is when parents set rules and guidelines but talk things over with their children, give them choices, negotiate when possible, make sure the REASON for the rules is clear, and allow the children to question the rules and will give answers.


Guess which parenting style overwhelmingly makes for happier and more socially competent kids? You got it, Authoritative. Authoritarian parents end up with kids who are obedient and have good grades, but don't have much initiative and aren't so happy, and kids with Permissive parents tend to have lots of self-control and authority figure problems, and, again, tend to be less happy. Kids with Uninvolved parents do the worst.

[Madouc]

My Chinese mum let me do a theatre studies degree.

Kinda wish now she was a tad more authoratative, but seems like "tiger mothers" were rare in my posse of Chinese/Eurasian friends. We are by and large a group of slackers just about treading water.

[HansMustermann]

I think you and the writer in the OP might actually be jumping the gun here a bit with your measure of impact. Surely the true measure of how good a job a parent did was how well the child does in life as an adult.

What is more impressive? A seemingly gifted 14 year old, or a 90 year old who lived a long, happy and fulfilling life, achieved a great deal, and themself produced a family of likewise successful people?

Well, yes, but which gives an idiot mom fishing for compliments her dose of attention and flattery? :p

I mean, the impression I'm left with from the article is that when she says that the only fun (allowed) is getting praise for doing something perfectly, she's not talking just about her daughters. She's pretty much telling us the kind of mentality that turned her into such a monster.

At some point she grew up, her mom wasn't around any more to praise her when she plays the piano, and the rest of the world kinda doesn't give a crap. The kind of skill needed to be praised for piano playing as an adult is a lot higher than for "omg, a 10 year old is playing that complicated piece." But she's been taught that getting praise is the only fun she's allowed.

Seems to me like the perfect recipe to create a monster that will make her daughter grind to earn mommy's daily shot of her addiction.

Exactly what good that piano will do to her daughter when she's 90 is probably as little concern as an alcohol addict has for what will happen to the grapevine plant. And as readily rationalized as unimportant. And just like to that addict, "if you wait 30 years you'll get a better wine" -- or in her case a better reason for praise -- isn't doing much when you're getting the jitters NOW.

In my experience children who are controlled too much by their parents tend to struggle once they're outside the control of their parents, because they never learned how to manage things for themselves. That's when the real damage of such an upbringing emerges.

QFT.

[Darat]

I'd like to know what high schools you know of that have pubs.

...snip...

Mind did!


OK not quite a pub but a licensed bar that was used whenever there was a social activity such as say when a play was being performed. :)



____________


They interviewed the author on the radio the other morning and she claims that the story regarding the piano piece is a family story that they all chuckle at, she said that's why she gave her daughter the best lines. (I'll come back to that in a moment.) She then went one to make comments about loving the child, building the child's confidence and that - the usual platitudes. Given that I could her the benefit of the doubt that the story is something that she embellished to make a better story for her book.

However thinking it through and if the basic details are correct then I think she steps over the line of being a controlling, ambitious and bad parent into being an abusive parent, it is this part that I base that opinion on:

"....We worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn't let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom....."

[drkitten]

The stereotype child musical prodigy does nothing more than play some piece of classical music on a piano. They haven't arranged anything. They're contributing nothing to the work. They're a mimic.

Horsefeathers. The performer contributes exactly as much to the composition as the actor does to the play. In both cases, the artistry consists of taking flat, inanimate marks on a page and making it come alive in such a way that the audience appreciates it -- and in the hands of a master, appreciates it at an emotional level, possibly seeing new aspects of the material that they had not seen before.

If you want to see just how good an actor/singer Zero Mostel is, for example, go watch any middle school performance of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum or Fiddler on the Roof. Then tell me that the performer is "contributing nothing to the work."

[drkitten]

However, success in school has not been a good predictor of success in business.

But Dr. Chua is demonstrably only interested in "success in school."

I don't think we're really disagreeing here.

[Pythonic]

But Dr. Chua is demonstrably only interested in "success in school."

I don't think we're really disagreeing here.

True. It is my assumption that the point of doing well in school is a means to success beyond school.

[drkitten]

True. It is my assumption that the point of doing well in school is a means to success beyond school.

Well, "success beyond school" does not necessarily mean "success in business." Indeed, when your metric for "success in business" means being the CEO of an innovative, paradigm-defining company like Microsoft or Apple, then almost no one is successful. Almost no one makes CEO.

And this is part of where Chinese culture might come into it. I think Anglos may be more likely to think of Bill Gates as the type-specimen of "success" than Chinese-Americans. Almost certainly Dr. Chua wouldn't want her daughters to drop out of Harvard to start a company in an unproven field; I suspect she'd much rather see her daughter placed as a doctor, a lawyer, a college professor or some "professional" position with a well-defined comfortable place in the middle of the hierarchy.

I think there's definitely a path to some definition of success that Dr. Chua has her children on. Her daughters are certainly more likely to get into an Ivy League college than any of the next generation of my extended family are. No matter how you slice it, that's an advantage in and of itself. Whether her daughters will be likely to capitalize on that advantage, or even to complete Harvard, is another matter. As I said, I can see them getting into Harvard. I'm not sure they'll have what it takes in terms of grades and recommendations to get into Harvard Law afterwards, however.

[themusicteacher]

Horsefeathers. The performer contributes exactly as much to the composition as the actor does to the play. In both cases, the artistry consists of taking flat, inanimate marks on a page and making it come alive in such a way that the audience appreciates it -- and in the hands of a master, appreciates it at an emotional level, possibly seeing new aspects of the material that they had not seen before.

If you want to see just how good an actor/singer Zero Mostel is, for example, go watch any middle school performance of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum or Fiddler on the Roof. Then tell me that the performer is "contributing nothing to the work."

Thank you so much, dr. I can't believe the mindset out there that says a performer has nothing to add to the conversation. Comparing a Xerox to Shakespeare isn't even an apt analogy. The only time that is true is when someone completely plagiarizes a work. Yo-Yo Ma, Alessi, Hahn, Marsalis, et al are not simply "mimics" (what are they mimicking anyhow?) when they perform a piece in their own voice, in their own way. Could you imagine trying to reinvent the wheel every single time you picked up your instrument or got on stage?

[HansMustermann]

Oh, that'll be rationalized as something that'll help in the long run, is very much normal. But I doubt that many actually sat and thought what's going to be useful after school or why, seeing as almost invariably the most common denominator is stuff you can show to other parents right now than stuff which falls under "stuff that'll be useful skills in 20 years."

I mean, exactly what use will those piano lessons be in 20 years? Does she want her daughter to be an underpaid member in some orchestra? Somehow I doubt that's what she's aiming for.

I doubt that Mrs Chua herself has ever played the piano to entertain guests or relatives, after she got out of her mom's control. Or that she actually imagines that her daughter will get to entertain guests with a piano, some 20 years from now.

That _was_ the reason why teaching kids to play an instrument was all the rage in the 19'th and early 20'th century. You'd get around the piano at a party or social occasion and play and sing something. And also served to make the point that you can afford a piano.

But nowadays? Not so much. Seating someone to listen to your piano concert instead of just turning on the radio or TV or MP3 player if you need some music, is probably nowadays on par with making them sit through your vacation slides. Still happens, but isn't very much appreciated.

But snobs lost sight of what was the _end_ for that _means_. They just make their kid play the piano, because it kinda remains remembered as something that posh people used to do.

And, as I was saying, because that's something you can make your kid do at some school occasion and get praise from other moms. That seems to be the real common denominator when it comes to imposing such extra-curricular studies upon a child. Whether it's the piano or violin or ballet or memorizing a ton of poetry or whatever. It's something you can show others "look at what my kid can do", whether it'll be of any use after that or not.

But ok, let's say Mrs Chua actually intends that her daughter will become a performer. Wait, WHAT? How does the rest of the programme she's imposed on her daughter help there? That daughter isn't allowed to even be around any people outside of the strictly mandatory hours in school. Even taking part in a school play is something she mentions derisively like some bullcrap excuse of those western kids, that no Chinese mother would fall for.

When aiming for a job with a significant public/social component, that kind of growing up isolated from people is pretty much ensuring that you'll be the least fit person for the job.

So, really, it's neither this nor that. So exactly what will that unholy grinding the piano -- to the extent of not allowing her daughter to get water or go to the bathroom until she gets it right, or all the other emotional abuse that she describes there -- do for her daughter after school? I'm genuinely curious.

[Father Dagon]

I'd like to know what high schools you know of that have pubs.

For that matter, I'd like to know what high schools you know of where networking will help you in your career.

Bear in mind that most people will not rise to the top anyway; it takes luck as well as skill, and by definition, most people aren't that lucky. But "the top" also isn't a position you typically arrive at in one leap. You do need skills, and you need whatever skills it takes to position yourself to the next level.

The next level after primary school is typically secondary school, unless you plan to be a child actor. The next level after secondary school is typically college, and after college is increasingly likely to be graduate school.

The way to get into college is not by networking with your fellow students and not by being in yearbook club and marching band. I don't especially like that situation, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize that fifty additional points on the SAT is worth considerably more than joining the forensics club at most university admissions departments. And no one gets into an M.D. program on the basis of how well they dance.Sorry for being obscure. I was refering to university level eductation, such as polytechnics (from my own experience).

Of course you can have too much fun at the pubs (borderline alcoholism). But if the pub is more like a dignified gentlemen's club rather than hysterical copy of an "it" club, then it could be pretty rewarding. You see, there's no real difference between exercise and play. Soccer teams use to horse around with the balls before the "real" exercise begins etc. And you might say that Troll Physics (http://www.urlesque.com/2010/10/25/i-showed-troll-physics-comics-to-a-physics-professor) is a waste of time, because it takes time from studies (but then everything takes time from anything).

Ergo: You could do worse things for your education than to kick back with some beer friday evening after one week of studies, discussing various things that you learned earlier in the week.

And disregarding extracurricular activities related to the school, there's plenty of other things you can do for R&R. Going to church, visit museums, workout, reading books, hang out with friends, etc, etc, etc. But in Chua's world, that seems to be no-concepts. So unless her daughters are immune to the law of diminishing returns, then they're only wasting their time. Of course 6 hrs of practice may be more rewarding than "only" 3 hrs. But if the quality deteriorates, then it's not economical.... but unless they know about landing gears, they might not be hireable in the first place. There's a whole bunch of management skills that they would need that you didn't describe there.True, true... However, if you're The Expert on landing gears and don't care a bit about what they're attatched to. As a matter of fact, you're so fixated on landing gears that you would gladly pool all the resources into landing gear R&D - at the expense of the rest of the aircraft - then you're definitley not management material.

[themusicteacher]

The stereotype child musical prodigy does nothing more than play some piece of classical music on a piano. They haven't arranged anything. They're contributing nothing to the work. They're a mimic.

I have no problem with admiring their technical proficiency, but comparing them to genuine artists who have created work of their own (be that a composer or a gifted arranger) is ridiculous. It's like comparing a Xerox to Shakespeare.

Your assertion is "ridiculous." Performance is part of the creative process and is, in essence, an arrangement (assuming the performer has not slavishly recreated a recording of a previous master) taking different tempi, accenting in varying places, adding touches of dynamic variation, shaping phrases differently. Are you suggesting that each piece of music is an entirely original work, completely devoid of any references to what has come before it? Genuine creativity is hard to come by and if we use your standard, there are extremely few true creators out there. I suggest you try to perform a masterwork and see how much of yourself you put in to it and then tell me if you were simply Xeroxing what Brahms (or even Lennon or McCartney) wrote.

[Pythonic]

Well, "success beyond school" does not necessarily mean "success in business." Indeed, when your metric for "success in business" means being the CEO of an innovative, paradigm-defining company like Microsoft or Apple, then almost no one is successful. Almost no one makes CEO.

And this is part of where Chinese culture might come into it. I think Anglos may be more likely to think of Bill Gates as the type-specimen of "success" than Chinese-Americans. Almost certainly Dr. Chua wouldn't want her daughters to drop out of Harvard to start a company in an unproven field; I suspect she'd much rather see her daughter placed as a doctor, a lawyer, a college professor or some "professional" position with a well-defined comfortable place in the middle of the hierarchy.

I think there's definitely a path to some definition of success that Dr. Chua has her children on. Her daughters are certainly more likely to get into an Ivy League college than any of the next generation of my extended family are. No matter how you slice it, that's an advantage in and of itself. Whether her daughters will be likely to capitalize on that advantage, or even to complete Harvard, is another matter. As I said, I can see them getting into Harvard. I'm not sure they'll have what it takes in terms of grades and recommendations to get into Harvard Law afterwards, however.

So, that brings up an interesting point: the sacrifice is not for a high level position (e.g. CEO) but for a place in the middle. Using my own career as a reference, that kind of sacrifice is completely unnecessary. The cost/benefit does not seemed justified; she is robbing them of their childhood essentially for little reward.

[Skeptic Ginger]

My wife is Hispanic and was raised pretty much as described in the OP. Anything less than a 95 was punished with grounding, extra chores etc, but she was never physically punished. Plenty of verbal abuse though. I met her in the summer before her Senior year in HS and her parents had slightly let go the reins a little bit because they trusted her (dummies!). By the end of her Senior year, she was pregnant. However, the way they raised her may have been a big factor in her finishing college in 2.5 years (after the birth of our daughter) and getting through Med School. So, in my limited experience, there's got to be something to heavy-handed parenting styles. But then we get back to the age old nature vs. nurture question. No doubt my wife is a smart cookie, but would she have achieved as much if her parents hadn't pushed her?There are pros and cons with strict parenting. And it makes a big difference how one's peers are also being raised. If you are the one restricted child among your peers who aren't, that has to be a lot harder than if you are raised with an expectation of conformity in a country where that is the norm.

As I said earlier, high demands of hard work and conformity have outcomes that may be strong on education and work ethic and weak on innovation and the ability to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

China is experiencing a bit of a crisis in medical research at the moment, something I am familiar with. Researchers are under much greater pressure to report positive outcomes than researchers in other cultures are. And the importance of saving face is also interfering. The result is much of the medical research coming out of China at the moment is unreliable.

So here is an economy doing quite well as workers get low pay and still work hard. But one does not see the same successes coming out of the country's scientific community. And in the medical field, disease outbreaks can sometimes be covered up because local officials don't want to look like they can't handle the situation. That was particularly prevalent during the SARS crisis.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your assertion is "ridiculous." Performance is part of the creative process and is, in essence, an arrangement (assuming the performer has not slavishly recreated a recording of a previous master) taking different tempi, accenting in varying places, adding touches of dynamic variation, shaping phrases differently. Are you suggesting that each piece of music is an entirely original work, completely devoid of any references to what has come before it? Genuine creativity is hard to come by and if we use your standard, there are extremely few true creators out there. I suggest you try to perform a masterwork and see how much of yourself you put in to it and then tell me if you were simply Xeroxing what Brahms (or even Lennon or McCartney) wrote.I think you miss the point. It's not that one doesn't need the technical skills, it's that if you sacrifice independent thought by not allowing it or rewarding it, then that technical proficiency could actually come at the cost of stifling the creative genius a talented musician might have had.

[drkitten]

So, that brings up an interesting point: the sacrifice is not for a high level position (e.g. CEO) but for a place in the middle. Using my own career as a reference, that kind of sacrifice is completely unnecessary. The cost/benefit does not seemed justified; she is robbing them of their childhood essentially for little reward.

While I agree, you may be underestimating the reward.

There are two questions to consider here. The first is how much the partial reward of attending (a good) college is worth in the long run; the traditional answer, as given by examining the record of previous generations, is "quite a bit." The current recession, however, suggests that this reward may be changing; the unemployment rate for recent college graduates is something like 25% -- and those career-establishing years from age 22-25 are economically critical.

The second is how much competition there is for that reward, and the answer here seems to be "not much," but it's much greater for good programs -- and the programs that give the greatest payoff tend to be precisely those where a good work ethic is not just useful but a necessity. (E.g. hard sciences, mathematics, engineering, economics, and so forth, as opposed to the traditional humanities.)

E.g., you're not going to be an engineer without a degree, and not just a degree, but a technical degree, ideally in engineering. You're unlikely to get into medical school with an undergraduate degree in "media studies."

If this parenting ends up pushing the kids into biology rather than communications and they complete the degrees, they'll will be much better off. Of course, I've seen too many kids pushed into pre-med programs who end up wanting to do theater arts and wash out of organic chemistry, so I don't think this is a good plan, but I can understand how Dr. Chua sees the reward to be worth the "work."

[jj]

Ok, I don't post here, but I have to say:

Based on my own personal experience, speaking as an old hill jack married to a chinese person, the stereotypes and assumptions in the "chinese mom" and "american mom" descriptions are so insanely demented, wrong, and idiotic that I can't see any meat here.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, I don't post here, but I have to say:

Based on my own personal experience, speaking as an old hill jack married to a chinese person, the stereotypes and assumptions in the "chinese mom" and "american mom" descriptions are so insanely demented, wrong, and idiotic that I can't see any meat here.
Speaking for myself, I certainly never meant all Chinese or all Americans or anything close. The issues I have described were discussed among Chinese medical professionals in our infectious disease circles, and also in dealing with all the supposed evidence for acupuncture that is unreliable coming from Chinese researchers that we've discussed in bad medicine circles. Many chinese doctors and researchers are the ones who have pointed out the problems, so clearly no stereotype was meant.

In fact some higher level Chinese government officials punished lower level officials who hid SARS cases. Again, this is a problem many in China are well aware of.

In discussing the problems of research and monitoring disease outbreaks, the culture has been cited as one contributing factor.

[mike3]

There are pros and cons with strict parenting. And it makes a big difference how one's peers are also being raised. If you are the one restricted child among your peers who aren't, that has to be a lot harder than if you are raised with an expectation of conformity in a country where that is the norm.

As I said earlier, high demands of hard work and conformity have outcomes that may be strong on education and work ethic and weak on innovation and the ability to adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

So what I'm wondering about is what would only demand half that, i.e. make high demands of hard work but kick the conformity part, especially conformity of thought, to the wind? (In a country that allows this, of course.)

[mike3]

Here's another one from this genre:
Harvard Girl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Girl)

These ones made their daughter hold ice cubes in her hands until they turned purple to "build character."

That particular measure I'd disagree with. What if you permanently damage their hands? Might as well go and have them stick their fingers (on one hand) in a wall socket until they can keep them there no longer. Personally, I'd think the jump ropes and the swimming would have been enough. This stunt is just stupid.

[mike3]

So what I'm wondering about is what would only demand half that, i.e. make high demands of hard work but kick the conformity part, especially conformity of thought, to the wind? (In a country that allows this, of course.)

(Though not toss, of course, "conformity" to the high work demands.)

[mike3]

While I agree, you may be underestimating the reward.

However, does even the properly-estimated reward justify every measure used? Does it justify every thing that the parent decided to "sacrifice" from the child?

[Skeptic Ginger]

So what I'm wondering about is what would only demand half that, i.e. make high demands of hard work but kick the conformity part, especially conformity of thought, to the wind? (In a country that allows this, of course.)I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

I raised my son without any physical discipline, I was consistent for the most part (no one is a perfect parent), and we had lots of dialogue along the way. If I didn't have a rational reason to require something of him or deny him some freedom he wanted, I didn't make demands, (for the most part, again in no way is parenting that easy).

My son's getting his degree at the end of the year and has applied to several PhD programs. I'm very happy with the outcome, he's a great kid.

I would prefer creativity to conformity. But that's the culture I developed my values in.

And I should add, I'm a firm believer in teaching not forcing good behavior. A parent should have the goal of raising a child who behaves because they have learned internal controls and rewards. If you raise your child with too much discipline, how can you expect them to learn self control? That doesn't mean laissez faire parenting, BTW, it means tying discipline and rewards to the behavior, IE natural consequences teach a lot more than physical consequences like spanking.

[mike3]

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

I raised my son without any physical discipline, I was consistent for the most part (no one is a perfect parent), and we had lots of dialogue along the way. If I didn't have a rational reason to require something of him or deny him some freedom he wanted, I didn't make demands, (for the most part, again in no way is parenting that easy).

My son's getting his degree at the end of the year and has applied to several PhD programs. I'm very happy with the outcome, he's a great kid.

I would prefer creativity to conformity. But that's the culture I developed my values in.

I guess what I mean is something that allows the kids to get really good at doing things and get the level of academic "achievement" that Asians get while also developing creativity and other good things that are had from the Western methods.

And I should add, I'm a firm believer in teaching not forcing good behavior. A parent should have the goal of raising a child who behaves because they have learned internal controls and rewards. If you raise your child with too much discipline, how can you expect them to learn self control? That doesn't mean laissez faire parenting, BTW, it means tying discipline and rewards to the behavior, IE natural consequences teach a lot more than physical consequences like spanking.

Yes. So what sort of "natural" consequences would come out of, e.g. lazing off in school that would "teach" the kid more? I don't necessarily approve of using the rod either, especially not for not doing well in school, but I would want to know how exactly what you're talking about jives with doing good in school.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess what I mean is something that allows the kids to get really good at doing things and get the level of academic "achievement" that Asians get while also developing creativity and other good things that are had from the Western methods.



Yes. So what sort of "natural" consequences would come out of, e.g. lazing off in school that would "teach" the kid more? I don't necessarily approve of using the rod either, especially not for not doing well in school, but I would want to know how exactly what you're talking about jives with doing good in school.
Well, since you asked....

First and foremost, don't try to choose for your child what he/she should be. Let them be who they are. Give them all the opportunities you can, but let them choose from among those opportunities. Your children are not an extension of you, they are individuals you have the pleasure of guiding. So if your kid wants to learn to play piano, fine, but kids have to be interested in musical instruments to really commit the time and effort to learn to play. Some kids are, some aren't.

If you find your child is not interested in school start by assessing the problem. Is the school boring them and/or are they being distracted by less efficient learning opportunities (junk TV, repetitious video games)? Or is it something altogether different like they are being bullied at school, or belittled by a teacher? After finding out what the problem is, the directions you can take depend on age.

How old is your child and what do you think the problem is?

[mike3]

Well, since you asked....

First and foremost, don't try to choose for your child what he/she should be. Let them be who they are. Give them all the opportunities you can, but let them choose from among those opportunities. Your children are not an extension of you, they are individuals you have the pleasure of guiding. So if your kid wants to learn to play piano, fine, but kids have to be interested in musical instruments to really commit the time and effort to learn to play. Some kids are, some aren't.

If you find your child is not interested in school start by assessing the problem. Is the school boring them and/or are they being distracted by less efficient learning opportunities (junk TV, repetitious video games)? Or is it something altogether different like they are being bullied at school, or belittled by a teacher? After finding out what the problem is, the directions you can take depend on age.

How old is your child and what do you think the problem is?

Thanks for the answer. Actually, I don't have any children, but I was interested in this topic, that's all.

[gumboot]

Horsefeathers. The performer contributes exactly as much to the composition as the actor does to the play. In both cases, the artistry consists of taking flat, inanimate marks on a page and making it come alive in such a way that the audience appreciates it -- and in the hands of a master, appreciates it at an emotional level, possibly seeing new aspects of the material that they had not seen before.

If you want to see just how good an actor/singer Zero Mostel is, for example, go watch any middle school performance of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum or Fiddler on the Roof. Then tell me that the performer is "contributing nothing to the work."

Thank you so much, dr. I can't believe the mindset out there that says a performer has nothing to add to the conversation. Comparing a Xerox to Shakespeare isn't even an apt analogy. The only time that is true is when someone completely plagiarizes a work. Yo-Yo Ma, Alessi, Hahn, Marsalis, et al are not simply "mimics" (what are they mimicking anyhow?) when they perform a piece in their own voice, in their own way. Could you imagine trying to reinvent the wheel every single time you picked up your instrument or got on stage?

Your assertion is "ridiculous." Performance is part of the creative process and is, in essence, an arrangement (assuming the performer has not slavishly recreated a recording of a previous master) taking different tempi, accenting in varying places, adding touches of dynamic variation, shaping phrases differently. Are you suggesting that each piece of music is an entirely original work, completely devoid of any references to what has come before it? Genuine creativity is hard to come by and if we use your standard, there are extremely few true creators out there. I suggest you try to perform a masterwork and see how much of yourself you put in to it and then tell me if you were simply Xeroxing what Brahms (or even Lennon or McCartney) wrote.


*Sigh* I at no stage claimed that a performer could not or did not bring their own artistry to a work. I am specifically talking of very young children, possessing a very high level of technical skill, yet lacking in any sort of innovation or creative input, who are then compared to historical musicians who were at the same age actually producing wholly original works, some of which are still very popular centuries later.

The nature of written music is such that it is possible to achieve a certain quality of performance solely through technical ability.

I hardly think citing adult musicians with a long and prodigious career and incredible wealth of musical knowledge really disproves my point. In fact I suspect if you talked to someone like Yo-Yo Ma they'd agree that their early childhood efforts were about learning technical mastery, and lacked the creative nuance and artistry of their adult work.

You only need go to a childrens' talent show (or for that matter watch an episode of American Idol) to see a perfect example of the same thing amongst singers - people with truly amazing voices who simply contribute no performance or artistry to the work whatsoever.

[HansMustermann]

That particular measure I'd disagree with. What if you permanently damage their hands? Might as well go and have them stick their fingers (on one hand) in a wall socket until they can keep them there no longer. Personally, I'd think the jump ropes and the swimming would have been enough. This stunt is just stupid.

Not only that, but it's something very painful. Cold induced pain is something we use for example in studies (on paid volunteers) about pain resistance. That's the standard method of causing pain in such studies, in fact: put your hand in a bucket of ice and water, see how long you can hold it there. Even then it's something measured in seconds and they're free to stop the pain when they can't take it any more.

And subjecting an unwilling victim to intense pain _is_ torture, plain and simple. So basically, yes, there is no fundamental difference between that and just belting that child or making her stick a finger in the socket. I mean, hell, they could have saved some time and just waterboarded her, takes less time to be utterly horrible and cause psychological damage.

And there is something even more repulsive about torturing someone not even as a punishment for doing something wrong, but as some screwed up notion of "building character."

But more importantly, unlike a fairly widespread mis-conception, exposure to intense pain does not make one less sensitive to it in the future. Studies showed that it just makes one _more_ sensitive to pain in the future.

So, yes, whether or not it caused permanent tissue damage in that child's hands, it did cause at least that permanent damage. Those idiots ensured that if that girl is in an accident or has a tooth abscess in the future -- or for that matter gives birth, which most women do sooner or later -- she'll suffer more.

*sigh* Sometimes I think shooting is too good for some people. The Evil Overlord's List be damned, shooting _is_ too good for some people :(

[HansMustermann]

First and foremost, don't try to choose for your child what he/she should be. Let them be who they are. Give them all the opportunities you can, but let them choose from among those opportunities. Your children are not an extension of you, they are individuals you have the pleasure of guiding. So if your kid wants to learn to play piano, fine, but kids have to be interested in musical instruments to really commit the time and effort to learn to play. Some kids are, some aren't.

While mostly I'll agree with what you've said, I'd further that point by adding: they should also take care that they don't turn that into a DIScouragement of such passion.

I mean, to return to my own anecdote, I originally liked physics. A lot. My parents pretty much gave me a physics book when I had asked something like why the sky is blue. (They had also taught me to read long before school.) And I actually enjoyed learning the real reasons why the sky is blue or why there's a voice coming from the radio.

But then it turned into a mandatory chore. I was saddled with having to do more, basically, extra homework than the actual homework from school. I'm talking to the extent of doing 25 extra textbook exercises a day, years in advance of where I was in school.

Dad also got it into his head... well, I'd say to teach me, but actually more like to brag that he taught me. I had more extra hours taken out of my free time to basically teach him physics, while maintaining a laughable facade that he's teaching me.

I can tell you first hand that there are very few surer ways to turn a passion into a hate, than turning it into an unholy grind that eats up all your free time and then some.

It's not just me. My brother, who was obviously smarter, ended up dropping every hobby or interest he ever had, as soon as my parents got on his case and tried to make him the best at it.

Some family friends' children were more or less in the same situation too. I guess like-minded idiots tend to flock together, because my parents' circle had a lot of such unhappy children. One had showed a genuine interest in playing the violin, or so his dad's version was, but ended up having to practice it pretty much every waking hour. I don't think many people, including from that circle of idiots, had many delusions that that kid is still happy with it.

Basically taking a Mrs Chua approach is still wrong even if the child picked that activity him- or her-self.

[Pythonic]

My personal opinion of where Dr. Chua fails is believing there is any generalized method of child rearing. Fortunately, she did change methods when her daughter became rebellious. However, parenting is a social dynamic between individuals the same way it is with any two or more people. It really is the art of slowly and gradually persuading someone else to be something in particular. So, it depends on what the parent has in mind as a standard of success mixed with what the child is capable of and what their natural tendencies are. I believe this topic is far too big to generalize and I certainly believe no one is ever in a position to give parental advice regardless of their child's achievements. For some, an achievement oriented life is not desirable.

[themusicteacher]

*Sigh* I at no stage claimed that a performer could not or did not bring their own artistry to a work. I am specifically talking of very young children, possessing a very high level of technical skill, yet lacking in any sort of innovation or creative input, who are then compared to historical musicians who were at the same age actually producing wholly original works, some of which are still very popular centuries later.

The nature of written music is such that it is possible to achieve a certain quality of performance solely through technical ability.

I hardly think citing adult musicians with a long and prodigious career and incredible wealth of musical knowledge really disproves my point. In fact I suspect if you talked to someone like Yo-Yo Ma they'd agree that their early childhood efforts were about learning technical mastery, and lacked the creative nuance and artistry of their adult work.

You only need go to a childrens' talent show (or for that matter watch an episode of American Idol) to see a perfect example of the same thing amongst singers - people with truly amazing voices who simply contribute no performance or artistry to the work whatsoever.

*Sigh*

And I or anyone who is serious, at no time, stated that any child prodigy was being compared to Mozart because they possess great performance skill. Why does it always come back to the simplistic argument of "Yeah, but he's no Mozart." How many Mozart's do you think there have been? I can probably count them on one hand. You seem to be caught up on technical proficiency as well. How do you think people are able to perform the great works? Divine inspiration? Anyone who is actually paying attention knows full well that technique is the only part of the equation in bringing music to life. Sure, I can perform something technically well but be entirely amusical and this often happens with child prodigies (you did mention this).

The works of Mozart at a young age are technically proficient but lack musical depth and maturity. Once he hits his mid-20's, his musical genius begins to shine through and marries with his technical skill. Does this mean he wasn't really creative? BTW, which works by young composers that they did before they hit their 20's are still widely performed today? I would venture to guess they are few in number. I'd also like to know who you are referring specifically to that was/is compared to those greats from the past. I can agree that we shouldn't automatically confer greatness on someone because they achieved technical mastery but you have to gain that mastery before you can elucidate cogent musical performance but I've found that people tend to talk in potential with child prodigies. They all have to begin somewhere, though, and that is often in disciplined practicing of the patterns, listening to masters, riffing on what they've learned then trying to come up with something new. It usually happens in that order.

[traviss]

are we talking Chinese Nationals or Chinese in general? I grew up in an area with many Chinese Immigrants and know a bunch of slacker Chinese guys...in some cases worse off than the typical Apethetic Gen-X/Y'r. So the borderline offensive question aside, which is it?

[technoextreme]

Ok, I don't post here, but I have to say:

Based on my own personal experience, speaking as an old hill jack married to a chinese person, the stereotypes and assumptions in the "chinese mom" and "american mom" descriptions are so insanely demented, wrong, and idiotic that I can't see any meat here.
Yeah I've known plenty of Chinese people also. The stereotype isn't that demented. Go back to the forum that you copy and pasted your posts from.
are we talking Chinese Nationals or Chinese in general? I grew up in an area with many Chinese Immigrants and know a bunch of slacker Chinese guys...in some cases worse off than the typical Apethetic Gen-X/Y'r. So the borderline offensive question aside, which is it?
Me too but the parents were pretty much still acting like the tiger parents.

[jj]

Yeah I've known plenty of Chinese people also. The stereotype isn't that demented. Go back to the forum that you copy and pasted your posts from.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that extends beyond your own anecdotal range? If not, then I think you're quite seriously overboard when you say that the stereotype isn't demented. Your anecdotal evidence is then no stronger than mine.

I'll leave your unwarranted, unsusbstantiated ad-hominem accusation of copyright violation unanswered, it is nothing more than a contemptable, false accusation of criminal behavior on my part.

[dudalb]

*Sigh* I at no stage claimed that a performer could not or did not bring their own artistry to a work. I am specifically talking of very young children, possessing a very high level of technical skill, yet lacking in any sort of innovation or creative input, who are then compared to historical musicians who were at the same age actually producing wholly original works, some of which are still very popular centuries later.

The nature of written music is such that it is possible to achieve a certain quality of performance solely through technical ability.

I hardly think citing adult musicians with a long and prodigious career and incredible wealth of musical knowledge really disproves my point. In fact I suspect if you talked to someone like Yo-Yo Ma they'd agree that their early childhood efforts were about learning technical mastery, and lacked the creative nuance and artistry of their adult work.

You only need go to a childrens' talent show (or for that matter watch an episode of American Idol) to see a perfect example of the same thing amongst singers - people with truly amazing voices who simply contribute no performance or artistry to the work whatsoever.

Funny, I bet you can see the same thing with actors..they are techinally competent but contribute nothing original to their performances.

[dudalb]

As For the "Tiger Mom":
I think that many American Parents are way too permissive but Jesus ****** Christ......
She seems to want not to have her kids develop the skill of deciding things on their own.Bad mistake.
I would insist that my kids do well in school, but .providing the they put schoolwork first, I would let them have some fun.Certainly unless it was something stupid or dangerous I would give them some leeway in choosing what they do in their leisure time.
Her kids are going to have some major mental problems, guaranteed.


Btw there is a Catholic School ran by nuns in Sacramento that does have a Mother Superior who is a Chinese American....

[Kuko 4000]

David Shenk's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=195018&highlight=david+shenk) response to the article:

http://www.babble.com/kid/kids-learning/Chinese-mother-child-success-science/

[Travis]

Funny, I bet you can see the same thing with actors..they are techinally competent but contribute nothing original to their performances.

Personally I'd be more proud of my kid writing a play than performing in one but both require a certain level of talent.

[Pythonic]

One thing that puzzles me about Amy Chua's approach, is why is playing the piano a more valued skilled than participating in a play? The odds of have a successful career as a musician is equal to any other position in entertainment.

[whatthebutlersaw]

One thing that puzzles me about Amy Chua's approach, is why is playing the piano a more valued skilled than participating in a play? The odds of have a successful career as a musician is equal to any other position in entertainment.


I can't know why Amy Chua felt this way of course, but acting was considered naff just a couple of generations ago and maybe a very conservative person would still feel so? Acting could, for example, require a certain level of undress and most definitely intimate contact with the opposite sex. Instruments other than piano and violin might require an undignified stance and give fewer opportunities for solos. Just guesses.

[JoelKatz]

I strongly suspect that Chua's daughters will turn out just fine. Indeed, they'll excel. That's what the children of two Yale professors usually do, however their parents raise them. I'm even willing to bet that Chua's daughters won't purge her when they grow up. Still, a sad fact remains: All three women in the Chua family needlessly suffered for thousands of hours ...
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/02/the_tiger_mothe.html

[HansMustermann]

I can't know why Amy Chua felt this way of course, but acting was considered naff just a couple of generations ago and maybe a very conservative person would still feel so? Acting could, for example, require a certain level of undress and most definitely intimate contact with the opposite sex. Instruments other than piano and violin might require an undignified stance and give fewer opportunities for solos. Just guesses.

I'm not sure how it works in the Chinese culture, but at least for a certain kind of conservative in the West it seems to not be it. I mean, the same people are ok with making a child to learn ballet, which is even more career limiting than acting and involves showing up in pretty tight outfits and getting pawed a lot. Or making a child learn a buttload of poetry by heart and making it recite it to other parents, and, frankly, unless you're going to be an actor or maybe a priest, exactly in which situation will you ever need that skill?

My subjective impression is still that the kinds of things they choose for their kids seems to coincide awfully conveniently with the set of stuff which:

1. Is easy to show off. You can make your kid recite poetry to someone or play the piano or whatever. But you can't really do a whole play at home each time you have guests, can you? Both for ease and time involved, the acting is just not easy to show off.

If you were the kind of praise addict making a kid grind and throw away their childhood to get you the daily shot lest you get the jitters, which would you choose?

2. is traditionally accepted as high class stuff. Most of these people don't really know any more _why_ and for what _purpose_ the people who could afford a piano would want to be able to play it (hint: they didn't have CD players to entertain the guests with) or recite poetry (ditto) or train to do elaborate dances (hint: that's how they danced at a party.) If they did, they'd just get the kid a CD player and get her to learn to dance disco. But they remained in the collective memory as stuff that the posh folks used to do.

By comparison, acting didn't use to be glamorous stuff until well into the 20'th century. The vast majority of artists were around the point where circus clowns are now. Poor, a dime a dozen, and getting less respect than Rodney Dangerfield ;) Plus it was not considered as intellectual and refined as, say, opera or ballet. So it wasn't really something a posh family would prepare their kids for.

So, yeah, wannabe snobs and defenders of the old values and ways, don't remember why it was like that, but they stick to it anyway.

ETA: and in case it's not blindingly obvious already, let me stress that the purpose was precisely to prepare people to do well at social occasions. It was the kind of skills that would prepare one to mingle and socialize at a party. The "chinese mom" turning it into a grind at the expense of depriving her children of any social contact or skills or friends, is a depressing way to miss the whole point.

[Joey McGee]

I can't find it but I read in the paper a few months ago that there was a local meeting for Chinese parents about this kind of thing. It was basically along the lines of Chinese activists people telling other Chinese parents "Science says forcing education is a bad thing, please stop screwing up your kids and filling the universities with these people who don't want to be there" I was generally surprised and appreciative that it was being dealt with openly.

If science said that assaulting children as discipline would make them better people that would be one thing. Thankfully we know the evidence shows it's the opposite. The only American states that still permit this in schools, or so I hear, are in the bible belt. Figures, right?

Forcing education is kind of different. If you equate academic success with the highest form of well-being possible, the emotional toll on the kids is still worth it in the eyes of the parents. If you can somehow show them a more enlightened view of success and well-being, they'd be apt to change their minds. That's the hope anyway.