<p>Haha, look where Obama got his ears from… That is a very interesting article.</p>
<p>So, based on examples of Clinton and Obama, one would conclude the following: In the success of raising a good kid, a smart gene is better than constant beating from a “Tiger Mother”… :)</p>
<p>BC’s mom was also very important</p>
<p>[Washingtonpost.com:</a> Politics News](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/kelley010794.htm]Washingtonpost.com:”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/kelley010794.htm)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And also that there is no need for piano or violin lessons if your goal is to be President.</p>
<p>Saxophone lessons might help, though!</p>
<p>^^ Or force them to use their left hands. You see most recent Presidents were/are left-handed.</p>
<p>We parents try to take too much credit.</p>
<p>W is living proof one can be a C-level slacking college student and yet, not only make it into HBS, but also the American Presidency. </p>
<p>So long as you come from a wealthy well-connected family whose help along with those of family friends are willing to pave bridges over past life mediocrities/failures…intelligence, ambitions of personal excellence, and certainly proficient musical instrument skills are all absolutely unnecessary. In short, “Tiger mom” parenting is not really necessary for future Presidential greatness. </p>
<p>Incidentally, his presidency was one reason why many undergrads I’ve met who excelled in college were quite cynical and even dismissive about the position of US president. Several of them even quoted something along the lines that the presidency is best suited for “second rate minds who are great at noticing first-rate minds and taking advantage of their intelligence and expertise and “BS artistry”.”</p>
<p>Don’t know why but I feel the need to defend W. He has a sharper mind than many “Tiger Mom”'s kids or the mom herself. It’s just a different kind of smartness, more useful one.</p>
<p>^Two perceptive posts. Clinton, George W. and Obama all made it to the Presidency with pasts that might horrify a Tiger mother. There is more than one way to achieve greatness.</p>
<p>If people are concerned about Chinese students and their aspiration to Harvard and other American selective colleges then instead of discussing Chua’s book, people should look at this one:</p>
<p>[Harvard</a> Girl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Girl]Harvard”>Harvard Girl - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Full disclosure: I did not read the book and don’t know it is good or bad. It just showed up when I read about education in China.</p>
<p>Great discussions on “How to Raise a Child to be a President”. Yes, Saxophone may help a great deal in reducing the crushing national debt: Just look at the differences in national debt clock under Bill, W and Barry (as his grandma called him) :)</p>
<p>On a serious note: Tiger mom’s method, in fact, can be very helpful in raising future engineers, mathematicians, chemists, physicists, doctors, a.k.a. worker bees for the society. It may reduce the probability of straying into the path of drug abuse, teen pregnancy, gang activities and other potential killer activities that may terminate the live of a potential future queen or worker bee. On the other hand, the Tiger mom’s method may also prevent the development of natural ability of being able to think creatively. And it may stifle the development of leadership skills necessary to lead as a leader. In short, the method is a two edge sword. It cuts both ways.</p>
<p>On the subject of Tiger mom parenting, here is another paper published…for your reading pleasure.
[Banyan:</a> Tiger cubs v precious lambs | The Economist](<a href=“Tiger cubs v precious lambs”>Tiger cubs v precious lambs)</p>
<p>kxc1961, Are you saying that engineers, mathematicians, chemists, physicists, and doctors are “worker bees” who lack the ability to think creatively?
Strongly disagree. I believe all of these positions require high-level creativity and problem-solving abilities.</p>
<p>No. That was not the intent. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was trained as one of them as well.</p>
<p>Well, I’m very late to the party so excuse me if my views have already been reflected somewhere in these dozens of pages. And I apologize in advance for all that comes off as bragging.</p>
<p>I can really relate to some of Chua’s points and methods (I am not Asian). I always felt it was important to demand a lot from my children in the way of effort and discipline. I get the general concept of “nothing is fun until you’re good at it” which I think can be applied to certain things, like playing an instrument–if you find yourself improving, which only happens with practice, then you enjoy it more and become more motivated.</p>
<p>So I made my Ds practice their instruments everyday, sometimes after minor battles, for a certain period of time, increasing with age. I gave them the option to quit at the end of each year, but when it came down to it, they never wanted to, although they were not heading toward professional level. </p>
<p>As another example, I went against conventional wisdom and pushed them to read a lot early on, what started out as a requirement in kindergarten, became a passion for both of them by first grade.</p>
<p>I can relate to Chua´s birthday card story, I would never show fake enthusiasm for something that demonstrated a half-hearted effort. While I can’t imagine berating anybody, let alone children, I do think you can differentiate feedback and be REALISTIC in the praise you give for your children’s efforts.</p>
<p>I also recognize Oldfort’s story, as teachers at our small K-12 school thought I was pretty tough and pushy when I had high behavior and work standards when they were younger. Yet the feedback I received when they were older --when they were widely admired as unselfish, self-confident and thriving achievers (each in their own different way), while so many other kids were overwhelmed–seemed to validate my style.</p>
<p>I made every effort to maintain the right balance between academics, extracurricular and social activities, and free time and absolutely tried to encourage creativity in all their endeavors.</p>
<p>Here’s where my philosophy totally diverges from Chua’s: I detest competition in learning and skill development. I emphasized over and over to my kids that it was not important for them to be the best or better than anyone else, but rather they had to strive to reach their personal best. I minimized the significance of the awards they won or didn’t win…if it were up to me, schools would do away with awards and competition altogether, in order to encourage learning for its own sake. </p>
<p>I don’t know what the end result will be for Chua’s kids, but I’ve seen several perfectionist or highly-competitive kids go through tough times in the face of failure. My girls grew up very aware of their own strengths and weaknesses and perfectly willing to partake in things at which they weren’t very good. I feel this attitude has helped my kids grow up psychologically healthy and resilient, at the same time intent on doing their best.</p>
<p>Here’s a great article arguing against competition in childhood:</p>
<p>[The</a> Case Against Competition | Education.com](<a href=“http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Case_Against/]The”>Articles | Education.com)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s just such a tone-deafness, this continued lack of realization that (sigh) success in America isn’t dependent upon going to a limited number of schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not a math/science person, but what I have gleaned from years of reading CC, is that HYP are not even the best places to matriculate if your goal is engineering or med school. Is that right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The high school classmates who were aspiring engineers would rarely consider H or Y because their engineering programs were considered jokes by such kids. They actually made fun of the extreme few who did because of “Ivy prestige” such as one classmate who turned down admission to Berkeley, Stanford, and MIT for Harvard and was seriously disappointed when Harvard DEAS was far less than she had hoped. </p>
<p>If one is going to choose Ivy for engineering schools, Cornell, Princeton, and Columbia were the top three choices among the engineering crowd. Even so, they’re many non-Ivy schools that are just as good or better. </p>
<p>For med school, I heard they can be the best schools for them…assuming you can withstand the cutthroat grade grubbing common among most pre-meds…whether Ivy or non-Ivy.</p>
<p>Well, cobrat, you’ve missed the point, because the point isn’t actually whether Cornell, Princeton and Columbia are better engineering schools than HYP – the point is that SUCCESS IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOT PREDICATED UPON GOING TO A SPECIFIC, LIMITED SET OF SCHOOLS. A point that seems to be difficult for some other cultures to internalize, as the “Harvard Girl” book success points out. </p>
<p>You know, being deliberately obtuse (“success in the US requires you to go to an Ivy League”) in the face of ample evidence to the contrary (the ample reality of life in the US) about something is not a sign of “intelligence,” no matter what someone’s SAT scores are.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>There’s no need to jump down my throat when I am directly answering Bay’s question based on what I’ve seen from friends and colleagues who were engineering/CS majors. </p>
<p>I don’t know…but it seems as if you have a serious issue with Asians. </p>
<p>Moreover, some of your previous posts betray a severe lack of awareness of how most immigrants, especially those from non-Western language based societies struggle mightily to adjust and understand the new society they immigrated to…regardless of prior educational level*. What’s more telling is that even if you did go off to a non-English/non-Western language based society, you are unlikely to face the severity of the language barrier/cultural gaps faced by those immigrants because English has become the effective “World Language”…especially in business, government, and diplomacy. Being an English speaker means many areas of the world…especially the urban educated areas will cater to your language and culture whereas that’s not necessarily the case for everyone else. In short, you’re perspective is blinkered by your seeming lack of awareness of your language privilege as an English speaker.</p>
<ul>
<li>My family knew dozens of Americans/Europeans who despite having college/graduate-level education…were clueless about the cultures and societies of the non-Western societies they were living in…even after several decades.</li>
</ul>