<p>Dad II – we gave our kids exposure and opportunities. Have you ever thought about taking a drawing class? A class in this? Hey, let’s go to the museum and learn about dinosaurs or the planets or whatever. You seem to spark to this topic area, so here are some books or resources on it. S liked creative writing – so he took several CTD courses in that area before determining that he was more interested in philosophy and history. Great. D didn’t know what she liked until recently, but discovered a real interest in chemistry and pharmacology. Terrific.</p>
<p>I insisted that my kids DO something … that they didn’t just study-and-do-nothing-else – but the substance of what they did was up to them. I didn’t care whether it was school-related or not-school-related, paid or volunteer, an activity that generated awards /honors versus an activity done for its own sake. I gave suggestions, of course – some of which they followed and some of which they didn’t.</p>
<p>My S loves to teach others. He followed that to an interest in teaching Hebrew to learning-disabled kids, and to working in a children’s museum. He also loves politics, which took him into working as a committeeman for a local party. My D discovered an interest that led her as well to working at another museum, and her interest was even mentioned in her LAC’s acceptance level (“the class of 2015 contains a …”). These are not my interests. Which is the point. They are genuinely their interests. I care that they have interests, but I don’t care what they are (as long as they are worthwhile in some way). How odd to think that I should have pushed them to playing the piano and violin. Out of all the possible worthwhile interests in the world, those are merely two.</p>
<p>I wanted our son to have the benefit of musical literacy. So there were piano lessons. Later he added cello. I know he enjoyed playing in the school orchestra. He is not an outstanding musician, but I assert that having learned to make music, he has a richer experience when he listens to music, which was the reason for my making sure that lessons were part of his life.</p>
<p>We felt that musical literacy was fundamental, so our kids had piano lessons starting at a young age. They didn’t practice for hours on end, though, and they were allowed to drop them when they lost interest, or switch to another instrument (one did, and the other continued on piano, but switched to a jazz teacher).</p>
<p>I find it interesting that almost nobody seems to think that all kids should have art lessons. Why music and not art? I think these are cultural norms.</p>
<p>I did not get that impression at all. Now you sound like Amy Chua and her ridiculous beliefs about Western parenting. Maybe this is why some immigrant parents are like her? Because they have this stereotype of what Westerners are like so they are fearful of it and go in the other direction? Why must things been seen as overly simplistic black and white? All or nothing? #1 or big fat shameful failure? </p>
<p>Most of the parents I know strike a balance and it seems to work out. One common approach I tend to see is most western parents give their kids exposure and opportunity. Introduce them to things, have them sign up for classes, go to exhibits, meet people. Via exposure and opportunity kids come to reveal their interests and their talents and there is a huge respect for all kinds of abilities and types of kids. Most of the parents I know provide a huge time investment and driving around and guidance as needed. Then make a commitment to a course, or class, or program for their child. They provide coverage of expenses, coaching, lessons, parental help. They seek out maybe the best they can afford if the child shows real interest or promise. They remind their kids of sticking to commitment when they whine. They may have to oversee their lessons, or create goals, or push them in some fashion when the going gets tough. They will require them to stick to their commitment up to a degree, and in some cases maybe switch coaches, teams, instruments if after a long period it’s not working out. Some will demand a longer commitment or more practice in return for the investment, and some parents will give up sooner (depending too upon the kid). </p>
<p>But there is a big difference between helping a kid discover their interests and talents, investing time and money into those interests, and guiding a kid to stick through the tough spots, and…forcing them year after year to do something against their will and interest. Likewise a big difference between letting kids learn at their own pace and passion- for the sake of their development and pleasure of many many wonderful things in this world to excel at - and the Chua style of parenting which is endless rote hours of forced training in one of two narrow pursuits that are valued (by adults) because anything less than #1 brings shame to the parents, and as Chua says “if the Korean kid beats you for first place, you are punished!”</p>
<p>Gentle exposure (not forced!) to the arts at an early age is very important for two reasons. </p>
<p>One, it serves as the beginning of our life’s journey. One that goes beyond the mere ‘survival’ that other, lower, animals are consumed by (thank you, TheGFG) and raises us above the mudane, ‘practical’ demands of life into an intangible – yet just as necessary, if we are to call ourselves truly ‘human’ – realm where our emotional and spiritual well-being is soothed and nurtured. When we’ve lost our ability to connect to that very essential part of us we have lost our reason for living.</p>
<p>Two, …I forget… oh yes, to see if the child has any inclination towards the arts. Hence, we raise another generation appreciating and producing the arts!</p>
<p>PG’s description matches what happened in our home also. We observed our children to identify their strengths, bents and interests, and then offered opportunities that might match. We also tried to address particular needs or weaknesses. I signed my D up for Girl Scouts because she was struggling to make friends with girls her age. And sure, when we decided to offer music lessons, it made sense to enforce a minimal practice schedule in order to benefit from the lessons.</p>
<p>But practicing hours and hours a day, to the degree that most everything else in life is excluded because there’s no time left, needs to be a commitment the child makes, or willingly assents to most days.</p>
<p>Just saw starbright’s post and she also expressed well how we did things.</p>
<p>I think all kids should have art lessons, but we didn’t pay for them because my kids’ elementary schools had pretty good art classes. The schools didn’t offer musical instruments until 7th or 9th grade, so we paid for those starting much younger.</p>
<p>the question was asked: why piano and violin?</p>
<p>I can’t answer the violin part, but we chose piano because:
-it is good to understand chord structure
-I thought that something interesting must be happening in the brain when reading for and using both hands
-I had studied piano so I could help!</p>
<p>Iglooo, can’t remember exact words, but basically it was more or less that isn’t it great where we live in a country where an immigrant can become a Yale law professor.</p>
<p>I agree that piano is a good instrument to start kids on. Why violin? Instruments like violin without fixed pitch should be learned early on before brain develops too much. While I love guitar (classical), guitar is a fixed pitch instrument. There’s no comparison in what goes in learning to play violin and guitar. If one is inclined to seek out challenge, violin is the instrument. Besides, we can get a 1/64 size violin for small hands. I don’t know if there’s 1/64 size tuba or if that’s small enough.</p>
<p>"We make kids do their schoolwork. Or do we do that only to kids who are academically inclined? Why is it different for music? Why is music a choice but not schoolwork? Or why is it that parents who harp on schoolwork are being responsible and harping on music is being abusive? "</p>
<p>a child does not need to excel at schoolwork. However they need to make some bare minimum progress. A child who ends up illiterate and unable to do simple arithmetic, will end up with the most limited life prospects. A child who fails to graduate HS, will end up with the odds stacked against them. So in academics, while you can live without going to a top college, without doing APs, even without going to college, a level of failure that is not unknown in this country will handicap you severely.</p>
<p>Noing absolutely zero about music, will not. </p>
<p>Now between parents who harp on schoolwork at say, the AP level, vs those who harp on music at a high level thats something else.</p>
<p>Exactly. To repeat ad nauseum, the family went on vacations to wonderful cultural spots and DIDN"T GO SEE THEM because the mother rented out piano rooms and made the kids play for hours on end. Because she was more than a little OCD that a missed day or two or week of practice would make a huge difference in that quest for #1. She never questions why her kids have to be #1. It’s a huge unexamined assumption, and she never exhibits much curiosity in the book in examining why her quest for excellence in her children has to translate to their #1 status in everything they touch.</p>
<p>While I think that she was extreme, I am ready to treat Amy Chua with more kindness than some others because I had some of this growing up, I turned out well I think, and I love my mom.
According to my parents, I started picking out nursery rhymes on the piano at the age of 2. My parents realized that something musical was going on in my brain and so my mom did some of the stuff Amy Chua did - driving an hour each way for lessons with the best teacher she could find, sitting with me to practice, pulling me out of “free time” at summer camp to practice under her supervision (I think that she found a job at the camp just so that she could do this), taking me for 5:30 AM lessons when that was the only time that an excellent teacher could teach me, competitions with hard-won performances in Carnegie Hall and other venues. Although my mom did not threaten me the way Ms. Chua did, I have to say that learning the piano can be very, very frustrating and it is only natural to have some yelling along the way, on the part of both the parent and the child. To truly master difficult pieces, you need to break them down into tiny parts and drill those parts - and children do not want to do this because they lose the gratification of hearing the whole piece or hearing the resolution - which is jarring to the ear. My practice sessions, which I was able to be independent in starting at age 11, did not usually extend beyond 2 hours, thanks mainly to some time-saving tricks taught by my teachers which made it much easier to get things quickly. (If I had been able to drill Sophia for Little White Donkey, I could have gotten her hands together MUCH more quickly with these tricks! It would have spared lots of heartache!) When I was about seven, my father accidentally discovered that I had pitch recognition. I didn’t know that everyone didn’t have this - you see blue, so why can’t you tell what note I am playing - and I also didn’t know that everyone can’t just understand music the way I understand it, and that others aren’t moved emotionally by it the way I am. Music is the most intangible of the arts, but if your brain understands it at a deeper level, you just get taken somewhere. And, you get more critical of what music is “good” - to me, it has to have some complexity, some unexpectedness, some unique way of getting somewhere to make it “good”. I also found that when I took music theory and composition in college, I already knew everything instinctively; I just didn’t know the semantics for everything. People don’t believe me, they think that music theory is really complex and that I must not have taken it at an advanced level, but what I am saying is true. The “rules” of music, especially for someone with pitch recognition, are so obvious that it is hard to believe that people have to “learn” them. I have to say that I am grateful to my mom for all of the effort that she expended, because music is an unbelievable gift to me and gives me so much enjoyment that I can’t even explain it.
Unfortunately, my children never had this part of the brain. I think that there may just be some predisposition to this in some way. (I have a very musical family - one of my relatives was even mentioned in Chua’s book!)</p>
<p>The point is that it didn’t matter if the Chua children had the innate gift that you apparently do, or they didn’t. They were expected to be #1 and perform at high levels REGARDLESS. </p>
<p>And if your mother didn’t threaten you, then she DIDN’T do the same things Chua did, and the fact that she drove you around for practices, etc. – well, that’s what most good parents do to the best of their ability.</p>
<p>Perhaps discussions about the extraordinary pressures to excel placed on the younger minds will open the eyes of observers to other problems, including how students “have” to turn to organized cheating in school and on standardized tests to keep up. Stories how this plays out in places such as South Korea are simply mindboggling.</p>
<p>levirm, yours is a very thorough and - from my experience - accurate description of serious piano education. My own children have practiced for up to two hours a day, usually with one day off per week. They play very well although they do not have perfect pitch and they do not like performing in front of an audience. That’s fine with me, they enjoy, understand and appreciate music at a deeper level. I think your description of things your mother did for you is very, very different from Amy Chua’s approach. I’m sure your mother needed to be strict at times, all parents need to give firm guidance to get a kid through the frustrating times that come in the pursuit of anything, but that is very different from the Chua method. She crosses the line time and again into ridicule and emotional abuse. I am appalled by all that I have heard excerpted from her book, and her own interviews/editorials. I will not encourage her abusive behavior by contributing a single penny to her profits.</p>
<p>Because the Chua children were required to play certain musical instruments (the ones where solo awards are given) a lot of focus has been given to musical education but it wouldn’t matter what the kid’s interests were. Any serious pursuit takes hard work and kids need to be encouraged to stick it out if the going gets rough from time to time - or rethink the choice of pursuit if the going is always rough and there’s no end in sight.</p>
<p>The more I contemplate this new Chua phenomenon (a financial windfall to both her publisher and child psychiatrists everywhere) the angrier I am because she has chosen to hide behind her ethnicity while claiming that every negative stereotype about high achieving Asians is true. So how are my kids to be seen fairly by their academic community at first glance? Do I put them in catchy Tshirts with a red circle/slash across the picture of a snarling cartoon tiger mother before sending them off to calculus? Should they go to their professor’s office hours and introduce themselves by immediately launching into an explanation that their parents aren’t crazy, narcissistic child abusers and offer some sort of evidence that they can think for themselves?</p>
<p>I know many Chinese parents who are nothing like Amy Chua. I have met controlling parents from every ethnic background, some with an added religious twist, others who treat the kids particular sport or ec like a religion. I don’t think I’ve known anyone who sinks to quite the level that Amy Chua reveals over and over again in her book. I don’t know anyone who would call their kid garbage, or boring, or ordinary in a derrogatory sense (a lot of parents I know might explain to kid X that the entire family structure is just “ordinary people” with limited means who may not be able to afford X or Y or Z - it’s the same word but in a totally different context).</p>
<p>I am completely unconvinced by the purported rebuttal offered by the 18 year old daughter. It is really, really hard to fake sincerity and she doesn’t seem very good at it IMO.</p>
<p>I am not a parent, but I grew up in South Korea until I came to an American high school. My mom is more relaxed than most of the moms I saw in the States. There have been two instances so far when I wished my mom were more strict. One is when I was researching to apply to elite South Korean high schools (talking about 20%+ Ivy acceptances from an exclusively Korean school here). The other is right now, as I apply to top colleges.</p>
I’m sorry, but this seems like a post hoc rationalization of a cultural norm to me. Certainly, you can get small guitars, and there are small wind instruments as well. If you were really looking for an instrument that was most likely to enhance the general life of a person (who was not going to be a professional soloist), then piano and guitar make much more sense than violin.
This perplexes me–why is it your judgment that this is a sensible use of two hours a day? What is the ultimate goal?</p>
<p>Hunt - in the beginning they practiced 30 minutes a day, but they began lessons in second and third grade, by the time they were in high school some of their piano peices were 6 to 8 pages long. They actually needed two hours a day at that point in continue in the piano program at the university - they wanted to continue. </p>
<p>They did many other activities throughout the elementary and middle school years - chess, swimming, tennis, dance, martial arts - including some classes in Japanese swordsmanship which included a specific motion and term for removing the blood from your sword after beheading your imaginary opponent, it was not my favorite activity for my daughters but since they wanted to give it a try - along with karate and fighting with the bo staff - I let them try all that was interesting and unlikely to cause harm. I wouldn’t have signed off on sky diving or flying a plane or sailing solo around the globe but I let them choose as much as possible and little by little they chose to devote time to the piano ahead of other things.</p>
<p>If there were more hours in the day I’m sure my kids would have kept up with some of those other activities but I always insisted on a decent amount of sleep and so choices were eventually made.</p>
<p>Hunt - my kids don’t enjoy performing in front of an audience, they do enjoy playing the piano in their own home either alone or with friends. Even though they won some of the competitions they were required to enter for their program, it was never about getting attention, awards or accolades in our family - it was an enjoyment of music for its own sake.</p>
<p>Most of the kids in the piano program like to play fast peices that were “showy”, my kids have always favored slower, moodier peices - often with a touch of dissonance in the contemporary period and heavily relying on Chopin’s nocturnes for the romantic. I think that is also why they chose the violin and cello as instruments to play in the school strings program - the solo music written for these tends to the melancholy. There were a couple of conversations with the piano teacher when oldest daughter was having difficulty finding yet another sad piano peice to play; the program required works from four periods - baroque, classical, romantic and contemporary - D1 “why was Mozart so happy - he died young, why couldn’t he write something more in a minor key!” She had zero interest in showing off how fast she could play - but a passion for dark, brooding peices brimming with emotion. Ideally the choices come from the kids; my feeling was that this is the way they were choosing to spend their childhood - with emphasis on the verb “spend” because once it’s gone it’s gone. As long as they are getting what they want from it that’s fine - it doesn’t need to be for public presentation. When they want to play for others they do - but they do not sign up for competitions that they are not required to participate in. Who needs a ribbon when you can really play Chopin?</p>