<p>I think I’ve gotten a birthday card from my kids once, and a couple of handmade ones for Mother’s Day when they were small (and made them at school); they now live on my nightstand. Does this make me a bad parent?</p>
<p>levirm, to the extent that people who might have been inclined to adopt Chua’s methods have learned that there are many people who place the methods somewhere on the scale from inadvisable all the way to abhorrent, the conversation is good. </p>
<p>To the extent that anyone might be thinking of adopting Chua’s methods, I find the publicity for them regrettable. I believe in deferred gratification as much as anyone, but the English saying “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” came from experience, I believe. The work in question in the adage may have been less stimulating than playing the piano/violin, but I think the saying still holds.</p>
<p>Locally, there have been quite a few high school orchestra concert masters who slid their violins under the bed at the end of high school and left them there throughout college. Perhaps they will eventually take them up again. It’s unclear.</p>
<p>Aside from everything else that I have already objected to, I really take issue with the idea that " . . . nothing is fun until you’re good at it" and “Once a child starts to excel at something . . . he or she gets praise, admiration, and satisfaction.” The first may be true for a child. As a working scientist, I have to say that one needs to learn to enjoy the struggle itself–i.e., the period when the derivations/experiments are not working at all, and there is no way to tell whether one is good or bad at the work, since either would look the same at that stage. Of course, the breakthroughs are euphoric. But it’s not because one anticipates praise and admiration. The supposed “rewards” of excellence are listed in the wrong order completely, and the whole phrasing makes me suspicious that the satisfaction is supposed to derive from the praise and admiration. Is this intrinsic satisfaction or extrinsic? In adulthood, in my experience, praise flows only “downhill,” that is, to people of lower status. “Admiration” might be assumed, and indeed accomplished people are often admired, but usually there are not overt indications of admiration. Praise and admiration are in any event hollow, in my sincere opinion. </p>
<p>For my type of work, the real reward of the work is understanding. Other types of work carry their own intrinsic rewards, perhaps a sense of creation or deep communication.</p>
<p>I think that people might be able to find different types of work intrinsically rewarding, but it seems unlikely to me that a person would be so indifferent to the specific nature of the work that an imposed choice would yield its own rewards, except in rare cases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is America not Asia. We reap the benefits now and leave the hard work to the future (e.g., load the future generations with crushing debt).</p>
<p>I don’t know about the statement "If you are good at something you will enjoy it. " If the inverse was true there would be a lot fewer golfers out there. Unless the typical golfer is just a masochist. :)</p>
<p>I loved basketball in high school (and still like to play occasionally) but unfortuately had the manual dexterity and smooth moves of the “Chief” from “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” Without the altitude.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But why? Those aren’t the only two choices out there. Why is it necessary to go to either extreme in the first place? Isn’t there some virtue to “everything in moderation”? Sure, academics are important, hard work is important, trying one’s best and not immediately throwing up one’s hands in defeat are important qualities to cultivate. But they don’t require nastiness, harshness or meanness to do.</p>
<p>Look, isn’t it pretty evident that there are some very accomplished kids here on CC, or the kids of parents posting here, who got that way and weren’t ever forced to skip dinner and work to the wee hours of the morning to play an inconsequential music piece, who were able to enjoy family vacations without having to spend time in music practice rooms, who had their homemade cards ooed and gooed over? Chua would have a point if her methods were the only means to her desired end. But they aren’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said. Isn’t the reward of excellence one’s own personal satisfaction? Not how many people recognize / praise you? How does that work, if you set up that the goal of working hard at something is so other people recognize / praise you?</p>
<p>I mean, look at all the kids on CC who really, honestly think that the reason to try to get to HYP et al is so that when they are introduced at cocktail parties down the road, people will be “impressed.” They have this notion that in the real world, people walk around saying “what college did you go to?” and then there are hushed gasps of amazement if it’s HYP, a little bit less if it’s some other place, and that there’s a tremendous hierarchy of these reactions. They value the <em>reaction.</em> Now, they’re kids. They don’t know any better and they’ll grow out of it soo enough. But why would you want to set up that the reason to want to do something well is so <em>other people</em> will bestow praise on you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you can’t see that there are ways of instilling discipline, perseverance and patience that don’t require throwing your 4 yo’s bday card back at her or making your 7 yo work through dinner with no bathroom breaks over an inconsequential piano piece … well, then, I guess that method doesn’t really allow one to think outside the box, does it?</p>
<p>
I’d be happy to give my opinion on this, but it depends on what you mean by “better.”
Most likely to need psychiatric help: strict
Most likely to use recreational drugs: permissive
Most likely to be an easy-going, nice person: permissive
Most likely to be an uptight supercompetitive person: strict
Most likely to die from heart attack prematurely: strict
Most likely to die in motorcycle accident: permissive</p>
<p>My preference, of course, would be something in between.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same here. Has no one else seen kids who were pressured for one reason or another to continue in an activity, be it swimming, piano, drama, etc., and who were really good at it, immediately drop it once they were given the chance, and never pick it up again? I know quite a few of those, including my own children! Just because you are good at something doesn’t make it fun. </p>
<p>I have not read the book, but my sense is that the most important thing to Chua is how others see you, not what you can do for the world. She seems to focus on creating a child that other people will admire as talented, smart and successful. I didn’t sense any importance placed on the child’s happiness.</p>
<p>I haven’t read Chua’s book…but as with everything else, the perception of the RECEIVER of these tactics should be noted as well. There were many times when I had to put my “strict mom” hat on with my kids. They didn’t like it at the time but both have commented that my “strict mom” way of doing things was something they appreciate now. I wasn’t like that all the time…and I suspect Chua was not either. Does her book say anything about times when she was kind and understanding in a difficult situation…or does it only talk of her more stringent types of discipline? Was this a daily or hourly situation in her home…or was it occasional (was it EVERY birthday or just a one time event). Please understand, I do NOT agree with her tactics…I don’t. BUT I’m saying we are not getting the whole picture of her parenting. We are getting what was put in her book.</p>
<p>
And I would note that a lot of high-achieving smart kids (the norm on CC, of course) are pretty good at just about everything–to me, this makes it even more important to let them discover what they really love.</p>
<p>I agree that some of Chua’s methods are extreme to say the least And I also agree that there are several methods of instilling discipline, perseverance etc. But Chua’s method is one of those. At the time she believed it to be the best way to achieve her goals. In her book she says that she thought there was only one way to raise her kids and she was proven wrong. This book is not a how-to parenting book as much as it is a memoir where the author shows how much she has changed and grown because of her kids. Looking back, I’m sure the author agrees with all of us that she would have done SOME things differently. I see her tone as self-mocking when she describes the birthday card and piano practice incident.</p>
<p>Bovertine: I guess that’s why Chua chose activities for her kids that they could pursue for most of their lives :).</p>
<p>
I don’t agree with this, because I don’t think most people are able to pursue being classical piano or violin soloists for the rest of their lives. But she finally let the younger daughter switch to tennis, which does meet that criterion.</p>
<p>While growing up, I can honestly say that I did feel angst over being sort of good at a lot of things, but not highly accomplished at one thing. It seemed to me that each of my good friends in high school had a certain identity that stemmed from excellence in a particular EC. One girl was a really good writer and editor of the school newspaper, another was known to excel at music and made the all-state band, a third was a talented athlete and was captain of 3 sports teams, and another was the science whiz. People like to put others in neat little boxes, but I didn’t fit in one. I was just well-rounded but had no specific claim to fame. That sometimes bothered me. </p>
<p>At my D’s high school commencement ceremony last year, I noted that the class president specifically mentioned certain students in the graduating class who were known for their excellence in something: the great sax player, the creative wriiter, etc. Those kids did seem to have the sincere respect of their classmates.</p>
<p>Recently, two moms of my youngest child’s classmates have told me that my D has a reputation in school for being really good at her sport. Since she is a special ed. student with poor social skills, I see that excelling in this one area gives her an acceptable identity and likely shields her, to a degree, from the teasing and disdain she might otherwise experience.</p>
<p>So for the above reasons, I can appreciate Chua’s point about the enjoyment and benefit that comes from excelling in an endeavor. The favorable opinion of others is indeed part of that enjoyment, but I still think it’s secondary. So I still don’t see the need for extreme parenting measures, nor do I think the esteem of others should be held up as the objective. It’s nice to earn recognition, but as another poster pointed out, many times praise and admiration won’t be received and thus one needs to be working hard because of other motives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would those be the only two choices? It would be like saying to an adult that you can only live in a totalitarian dictatorship or an anarchy.</p>
<p>But Hunt, that is exactly what Chua has done. She is not choosing her kids activities beyond a certain age - she pushed them when they were young because at that age they don’t often make the best choices. I’m also not sure if the reason Chua wants her kids to excel is because how people will see them - i think it’s because of how they will see themselves. I’m sure at least that was the intention. And to say that the only reason kids want to go to HYP is to impress people is over-generalizing. I’m sure there are some kids who want but for that, but there are many more who want it for reasons other than prestige alone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why, is there an age that someone can’t start the piano? What if someone never learns the piano as a child for whatever reason, but decides at age 15, 25, 35, 45 or 55 that they want to start? You know, they’re “allowed” to do so. So maybe they never play at Carnegie Hall; so what?</p>
<p>And what made the piano and the violin inherently better choices than any other instrument that a child might be interested in? Is the point of music to play at a high level and impress others, or to enjoy playing music?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t be disingenuous. There is a world of difference between “I insist that my children learn the piano / violin because I believe that a base line of musical proficiency is important” and “It’s of paramount importance to me that my 7 yo master a music piece for her lesson, so much so that she can’t go to the bathroom or eat dinner til it’s done.”</p>
<p>Haha. Yeah cuz a 5 year old knows exactly what interests them and what will continue to interest them.</p>
<p>And on some earlier points… we shouldn’t criticize kids. Everyone is equal and perfect in their own way. In fact, I say we stop keeping score in childrens sports so as not to hurt anyones feelings…</p>
<p>So what do you do if your interests in life aren’t necessarily those that get grades (such as schoolwork) or aren’t necessarily those that are performed in public and that other people applaud (such as a musical performance)? What if your interests are learning everything you can about the American Revolution or the collected works of Moliere, Corneille and Racine or tinkering around with automobiles, as examples? They aren’t graded, there are no outward marks of mastery, those aren’t interests that are shown to neighbors / friends / the general public, you’ll get few extrinsic plaudits from others. Are those not worthwhile? Not enjoyable?</p>