Oh my God - everything I read about this book makes me ill. However, a friend has just bought it and wants to discuss it with me, so I’m going to borrow her copy and read it this weekend unless I find I just can’t get through it. I’m trying to imagine what context Chua can possibly apply that I won’t be deeply disturbed by her humiliating a young adolescent in public - or criticizing her kids for preparing weak speeches for a grandparent’s funeral. Where are her boundaries - her concern for her children’s feelings? Children are people.</p>
<p>I don’t think any of us have a problem with strictness qua strictness. I just don’t see a lot of introspection about what her end goals were. She just assumes the “correct” end goals in parenting are #1-in-school high-level music virtuosos, without questioning whether those are indeed the right goals to have. I wish she would have had more introspection as to why those were her goals, and has she journeyed to a point where maybe she would reexamine or reevaluate those goals if she were doing it again. In other words, what’s the benefit of being #1 in all subjects versus being an excellent student in all subjects (why aren’t straight A’s enough?). What’s the benefit of playing at Carnegie Hall versus simply being very good at the piano, stretching to master skills and enjoying playing it. She doesn’t introspect as to why those goals were so important in the first place and what might have happened if she’d moved off them.</p>
<p>Chua’s method can not be used in developing leaders. Any hint of leadership tendency will be squashed/nipped in the bud. On the other hand, it may be a great way to develop/raised a great technician.</p>
<p>I’m all for reading books before discussing them, which is why I won’t discuss this book. I’m not interested enough to read it.</p>
<p>However, I do think it generally turns out that for a book which is discussed at great lengths in print, on TV, and on the internet, with numerous excerpts printed, a person rarely changes their opinion of the book’s subject matter much after reading it. THe quality of the writing, the entertainment value maybe, but the premise (if there is one), not so much. At least in my experience, if people have formed general opinons based on numerous second hand accounts I rarely see those opinions change radically after the person reads the actual text. Just my observation. YMMV.</p>
<p>I think it is far more ciritcal when referencing a scientific or scholarly study to actually look at the data - because often reviewers don’t look critically at data and merely repeat the author’s conclusions.</p>
<p>Well, I’ll give you that she probably doesn’t regret having those goals in the first place, but why do you think there is something necessarily wrong with those goals? Isn’t it okay for different parents to have different objectives for their kids? We need music virtuosos in the world, just like we need plenty of all around good people. Some parents want to foster leadership skills, or sports ability or artistic creativity, all to different degrees. And I think it’s every parent’s right to set a path or have a plan to follow that they think it will be in the kid’s ultimate best interest.</p>
<p>The real question is how the girls feel about it. I have no reason to doubt that they are genuinely grateful for their mother being so tough on them. I suspect they have plenty of self-confidence and a terrific work ethic that will serve them even if they choose later to follow a different path away from music. Sure the girles missed out on a lot of mainstream things (television, video games, facebook, sleepovers), but nobody can do or be everything and they get a different kind of satisfaction in return.</p>
<p>I couldn’t disagree more that starting with a young child and decreeing that he or she MUST become a music virtuoso – regardless of said child’s innate talent, ability, or interest – is a worthwhile goal. </p>
<p>There’s a complete and utter lack of sophistication on Chua’s part when she fails to acknowledge the difference between exposure to and proficiency in something and mastering something. </p>
<p>It’s perfectly appropriate for me to decide that my kid needs to learn how to swim, ride a bike and go to Sunday school; it is over the top for me to decree that my kid must be an Olympic-caliber swimmer, the next Lance Armstrong, or become a priest/ minister / rabbi. Similarly, I think it’s entirely appropriate to decide a kid should have music lessons, but it’s entirely inappropriate to force them to become music virtuosos at that level.</p>
<p>Being good at music or school work could be a leadership in itself. No? When my D was learning her instrument, leadership or community service was not what she had in mind. But she got good at it and is the leader or one of the leaders of the orchestras she is involved in. Since she is in front but not in anyone’s face, she is well-liked by members. Her leadership, leading by example, is highly effective. I am sure I don’t need to tell anyone how effective a little music can be in a soup kitchen. One can say the same thing about school work. It’s better to have a leader who knows what s/he is talking about in classroom discussions. There are kids who never stops recycling their hollow arguments. That’s hardly a leadership.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an interesting take. If the kid was 4 years old, it seems a little young to be “corrected.” I thought the general practice in early childhood development was to start “correcting” kids around the second grade.</p>
<p>Wildwood, on CC you will find threads from students who want to study x, y, and z (and have concrete plans, not just pie-in-the-sky dreams) but their parents have “decreed” that they be engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. Is that appropriate, IYO? I mean, the world needs engineers, doctors and lawyers, right? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, obviously Lulu didn’t feel so good about it, because she rebelled. Gee, who could have ever predicted that a young person might want to have some own say in the interests she pursues and how she spends her time? Gosh, if a Harvard educated, Yale law professor couldn’t FIGURE THAT OUT, then she’s quite dumb.</p>
<p>Do you think that 6 hour a day practice sessions, practice sessions even on vacation / when recovering from illness / etc. are necessary to instill self-confidence and a terrific work ethic? What about self-confidence and a terrific work ethic couldn’t have been instilled by having the kids practice an hour a day and OMG-the-horrorz skip a few days when on family vacation in freakin’ Europe?</p>
<p>I used to think that, but I learned it is not considered leadership at my kids’ h.s., at least when evaluating an applicant for National Honor Society membership.</p>
<p>Well, in this area I totally agree with Chua. If you don’t start telling it like it is to your child from a very early age, I believe it can come back to haunt you. I support the idea that little children are not fragile, that they can take criticism early on (as long it is accompanied by lots of positive reinforcement as well), and that it is the best way for them to develop realistic self-esteem. </p>
<p>One of the best parenting books I’ve ever read is called “The Manipulative Child”. Although it is a terrible title, and the book is really for all parents, it lays out excellents arguments for developing self-esteem in children through honesty and consistent value-based parenting. The most important message for me was you can’t be afraid of upsetting your child i.e., don’t cave to feelings of guilt or sympathy, don’t treat your child as if they can’t handle bad feelings, do require your children always to live up to your standards. All this, from day one. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I think her goal for her daughters to reach great musical heights developed as she saw that both had real aptitude and an innate musical sensitivity, according to professionals. It seemed to start out as just a worthwhile skill that required discipline (a good overall quality to instill).</p>
<p>How can just sitting and taking lessons - which is what the Chua girls did – remotedly be considered leadership? It may be achievement, but not leadership. One could have a MUCH lower level of piano proficiency and demonstrate far more leadership.</p>
<p>Oh, please! You said you read the book – she had the goal for the children to reach those musical heights FROM THE START – not because she saw “oh, wow, I exposed them to music and they happened to be good, let me push them to the next level.” Similarly, her goal was that her children be #1 in all subjects FROM THE START – not just “hey, whaddya know, they are good students, let me push them to the next level.” The goals were INDEPENDENT of the actual children she was given and their actual interests, talents and abilities. It just so happened she had talented children – and if you make someone practice THAT hard, they’ll become good.</p>
<p>Yes, she rebelled. But she also said in the end that she was glad her mother forced her to play the violin, as I quoted in an earlier post. You may not believe that, but I certainly do, because even though Lulu reached an age where she did not want to pursue the violin as seriously (she never stopped altogether), she was glad to have done what she did and will value all the good things that the effort resulted in. She now does have some say in the interests, it doesn’t mean she should have had the same say at age 7 or 10, and it is not clear that she really wanted to stop then either (sometimes she loved playing).</p>
<p>What is your take on Chua’s opinion that the Chinese mother approach to overweight daughters, “Hey fatty, lose some weight?,” is the superior one? (I have not read the book).</p>
<p>Whether or not a given child has moments of enjoying an activity is really irrelevant to the question of whether the parent should shove it down their thoughts and demand highest-level proficiency in general, and in particular in the hard-ass way Chua did.</p>
<p>Since you asked, Bay, I was horrified, especially coming from a mother who makes their kids sit in front of the piano and doesn’t let them go out and play, (thereby getting some exercise). It’s almost like this is what she wanted, she created a situation where her kids would be heavy and then she could pick on them for it.</p>
<p>My experience with people who are so critical about so many things is that they have a need to criticize. The person who is getting picked on thinks if they can just do things right the criticism will stop. Sadly, the criticism never stops, the criticizer always finds something else that is wrong. The person who is on the receiving end of the criticism has to have a certain level of maturity before they realize that the only way the criticism will stop is by removing themselves from the situation.</p>
<p>Well, Pizzagirl, we’re never going to agree. Chua did say that she wanted to expose the girls classical music because of its cultural value and she wanted them to achieve excellence from day one because of the rewards inherent in that. The Carnegie Hall and Julliard goals came later as they moved within sight. The goals she had were not independent of her daughters’ capabilities, they are clearly both highly gifted, which is unsurprising given their parents, and which must have been evident early on. Chua’s mother bent over backwards to make sure her Down’s Syndrome daughter reached her potential, why is it so wrong for Chua to want the same thing for her daughters?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I would never used those words myself, I have told my daughters when they’ve gained a few pounds, just as they tell me. They usually just cut back a little when they hear that. Both are slim and healthy, have never really dieted and have no body image issues. Chua’s choice of words is probably very much a part of her sense of humor, understood by her kids.</p>