<p>Thanks, Wildwood11–I had lost track of the issue, because of the multiple intertwining issues on the thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve read a lot of “how to” books, including for parenting. This is not one of them. </p>
<p>She is telling her story, which answers a question that many people ask. People wonder how one raises a prodigy, not necessarily because they want to do it with their kids, but because they are genuinely curious.</p>
<p>If you do read the book, Bovertine, you will see the sarcasm and self-deprecation laced through the story.</p>
<p>
Sigh. Maybe it’s a question of definition. A how-to book is a book that answers “how to” do something. You say here that people want to know how one raises a prodigy, and apparently she tells them how she did it. I don’t care how self-deprecating or ironic it is. That’s a “how to” book. So you are saying this book has absolutely nothing to do with answering the very question people ask, and that she claims to answer? It makes no sense. </p>
<p>How about I call it a “how I did it” book? Is that more accurate? I don’t really see a big difference.</p>
<p>I may read the book. Primarily because I have no real idea about what exactly it is she did or didn’t do. I suspect I may agree with parts of it and disagree with other parts. But I reitierate an earlier point - reading numerous excerpts and commentary on a book like this by people who have read it, and listening to the author can give one a pretty good idea of what is up with the book. Frankly, you were pretty supportive of Chua before you read the book, and I don’t notice that your point of view changed significantly after reading it. I wouldn’t expect it to.</p>
<p>“For people who read the book, did Chua ever say that anyone (Asians or Westerners) should look at young ladies like her daughters? Did she say that her daughters were “better” than other people’s daughters? Even if people wanted to raise daughters to be just like her daughters, did she say her way was the only way to achieve the end result?”</p>
<p>I also feel that the answer is “no” to the above questions. </p>
<p>The book is a memoir in rough chronological order that highlights various stages of her life as a parent. So in the beginning where Ms. Chua speaks about the “superiority” of Chinese parenting, I believe she is referring to how she USED to believe in this method. Then by the end of the book she changes her methods and for example, allows Lulu to freely play tennis. Her two dogs are also used as symbols of her methods changing as the girls grow up. </p>
<p>Somewhere in the book she states that she wanted to write an epic novel like Amy Tan and other laudable Asian-American immigrants. So, IMO this book began as a ‘how to’ book but is quickly changed to more of a “how not to” book (I think she has actually said that in an interview).</p>
<p>Wow, she “allows” Lulu to play tennis. You’ll forgive me for being unimpressed by such a minor epiphany / concession!</p>
<p>“She set her own goals and priorities for children, just as we all do as parents.”</p>
<p>That actually is a one sentence summary of Chua’s methods perfectly, the key word there is “her”. I disagree that all parents do this, or even most. I disagree that parents set the ultimate goals or a rigid roadmath like Chua did, most parents have values and general goals, like the child gets a good education and finds a way to a life that is comfortable and successful, few parents want their kids to fail or whatever. There are parents like that, the stereotype of the Jewish mom where a kid better become a doctor or a lawyer is one of them, there are kids raised where they are expected to take over the family business, kids expected to do X, Y and Z, but it is not the dominant mode. If it were, we would have no artists or musicians, because those are fields where success is as difficult as it can get and there is no magic formula (in fact the Chua method works against this, I’ll talk about that in a bit) and the success frankly is not good enough for Chua and her ilk. But in her case, it is all about her (or the “I” as a shrink would say), and it isn’t what most parents do.</p>
<p>I’ll differentiate it for you, using my own style (whatever that is) against what she is doing. Chua basically laid out a path, decided what was important and what wasn’t, and forced her kids along that path from everything I can tell, with all these neat little benchmarks and milestones on the road to ‘success’ (reminds me of Gantt charts used in project planning). The goal for her it seems was they do certain things, be #1 in them, put everyone ounce of energy of the kids into doing that, and this mentality stretched into everything. </p>
<p>With our child, had no such plan (and before anyone thinks I am claiming superiority, forget it, I am sure at some point we will get the 'remember when you did X thing). Rather, we tried to encourage him and adjust things we thought would work best as things changed. We live in a good school district and would have sent him to public school, but when it became apparent he was out there someplace on the gifted spectrum, we stretched to send him to private school, not because it would lead to the ivy league, but because we hoped they would do a better job then what public schools do with such kids (I know that one from experience). </p>
<p>My wife when he was little spent untold hours doing what I am sure Chua would consider ‘wasted’ time, we didn’t drill him on reading or math, but rather on doing things he wanted to explore. Yes, we introduced new things to him, all the time, but we didn’t force mastery and if he wasn’t interested he moved on, which is fine. He got into music by taking a kindermusic class (which I am sure Chua would sneer at as being the musical equivalent of arts and crafts), felt something for music, and asked to start on an instrument (we had nothing to do with it), and in many ways charted his own path and following his own path is a serious music student at a high level. He also is a very polite kid who can talk about anything, who gets along with other people and can talk about anything from sports to the tonal theory behind the opening of Beethoven’s Eroica symphony <em>shrug</em>. I am not going to say he is “#1” in everything, just saying he is doing very well without having been forced on a path (nor am I going to claim being the perfect parent, hah, nor that what we did would work for every child or whatever, for get it). The one similarity between Chuas method and what we did is that we supported him in whatever he did or tried wholeheartedly, but instead of forcing him to do things, we encouraged him to try things he normally wouldn’t do to see what he liked. </p>
<p>Oldfort, playing an instrument is a wonderful experience and so is appreciating the music, I don’t think anyone is arguing that. The problem is that that is not what Chua and her kind are doing, I guarantee that, and I know better then probably a lot of people posting because I am in the middle of that. The obsession with Piano and violin and cello has nothing to do with love of music or believing it is important for its own sake, on those grounds I suspect the Chua’s would dismiss it like they do arts and crafts as ‘worthless’.</p>
<p>From direct experience, the reason those instruments are big is because they see extrinsic value in them beyond the music itself. First of all, those are solo instruments, where there is a fake hierarchy where you can be “#1”, whether it be playing more and more difficult repertoire at an early age (“The prodigy”), the infamous competitions that these kids go at full forte, all because it can measure “being #1”.</p>
<p>Then, too, they have this belief (not sure where it came from) that playing an instrument was de-rigeur for the upper class, so to them it is a pre-requisite to ‘moving up’. That hasn’t been true in western society since the 18th century and most upper class people would laugh at such a thought, it is no more a part of being upper class then it is among us more humble folks. (Sidelight on this one, apparently in Korean culture, specifically in the upper classes, having a daughter who is an accomplished musician is considered a plum when arranging a marriage in terms of attracting a successful groom; In the high level pre college and college programs to this day among kids with Korean background the ratio is 5-1 girls to boys. Before some claims this is racist hogwash, I suggest you look at a book called “Mozart in the Jungle” and also another book written a number of years ago about Juilliard I believe called "Nothing But the Best: The Struggle for Perfection at the Juilliard School "). </p>
<p>The other part of this is parents like Chua also believe that having music on your CV, things like winning competitions or being in a high level pre college program, gives them an edge in admissions and also might mean scholarship money for schools trying to build their music offerings (not as majors, but to play in the college orchestras and such). There is proof of the mentality in another example, the viola, which is kind of the Rodney Dangerfield of string instruments, it doesn’t get respect (it should, it is a beautiful instrument and should be a solo instrument in its own right more often). Anyway, very few kids start off playing the viola, and among the Chua-ites, almost zero. However, it is quite common for kids to switch to viola when they are aiming to get into one of the pre college programs, because it is generally easier to do so on the viola then the violin, because the viola is less popular, and they often get in that way…the mentality being that the importance is getting into the program,as a CV booster, even if it means switching to the ‘less valuable’ instrument. </p>
<p>In effect it is about ‘using’ the instrument to further other goals, and that isn’t music appreciation or love of it. Want proof? Among the kids who have parents like Chua (who for arguments sake I am going to say Asian, because in music these days on piano and violin and cello the students are overwhelmingly Asian) there is little love of the music for the most part (I will add some do actually like the music). Put it this way, I go to concerts and know a lot of people from all over the country who go, and despite hearing about the passion for classical music that is driving Asians into music and instruments, basically there are almost no Asians in the audiences, whether at Carnegie Hall, Avery Fisher, Boston Symphony hall, SF, LA, etc.Likewise, demographic surveys of buyers of classical music or audiences for classical music stations show a very small percentage of Asians. </p>
<p>At the program my son is in, from talking to the parents or from what my son has said the kids tell him, their families don’t listen to the music or go to concerts unless the kids are playing. The only Asian audience members generally are young, in their 20’s and I am pretty sure are music students. Likewise, even in these high level programs, more then half the kids on violin, piano and cello will not study music in college, even if they wanted to their parents wouldn’t let them, because music is not exactly a financially rewarding path and is often a struggle. </p>
<p>Want further proof these instruments are not about love of music for these kind of kids? With the other instruments, woodwind, brass, etc, doesn’t matter what the kids background is, a large percentage, well above the majority, are seriously thinking of going into music or are heading that way…why? Because whatever background, the Chuas of the world with their using music don’t allow their kids to play these instruments, so the kids there tend to be kids who play music because they love it (that is changing a bit, Chua types apparently have decided that other instruments might have value, be interesting to see what happens down the road, if the percentage of kids on these instruments who actually love it goes the way of the violin and such)</p>
<p>Pizzagirl hit the nail on the head, that the problem isn’t in encouraging a kid to play an instrument, it is the reason behind it. Music is an art form and there is no love of that at all for its own sake, it is simply because in the “Chua Culture” they think it leads to something in their goals, it almost certainly doesn’t lead to appreciation of the music. I can tell you that even among kids at the high level in pre college programs, that the kids who were raised like Chua the only thing they tend to care about is concerto competions within and outside the program, and they basically disdain orchestra and chamber and whine their way through music theory and ear training, because “it isn’t important”…that isn’t someone who loves music, that is someone who is doing it to ‘get something’ from it. </p>
<p>It is much like music in China, where the Chinese government has decided that classical music brings prestige to the country, the way they do for example with sports, and they have driven this huge state driven music program, they have built huge concert halls and such, because to them it brings prestige. Yet, as Alex Ross pointed out in a New Yorker article on a trip to China, what he found was the enthusiasm was manufactured, that the concert halls, that are heralded as being ‘full to bursting’ as proof that Asian audiences are going to ‘save’ classical music, are not what they seem, that with those concerts many of the tickets are free tickets, given away by government and industry, where people are ‘encouraged’ to go. Sadly, with the lust for “#1”, local orchestras and players are ignored, where the concerts are mostly western orchestras and soloists. Worse, with that, the government has relegated traditional chinese musical forms, including the Chinese opera, to being something for ‘the common people’ to play. Ross gave a description of coming across a traditional chinese music group playing in a room at an arts center, and being denied permission to go in and listen by security, because that kind of music was not good enough for outsiders to hear…</p>
<p>Wildwood, I know pianists who have seen Chua’s daughter play piano, and they differed, they said she was technically sharp but in their eyes, she was basically playing the piece exactly the way she was taught.I haven’t seen her, but I trust the people who told me this, they were high level piano students or young professionals. Even if she is the exception (and some exist), that isn’t true of most of the kids raised like Chua did, and I have sat through a lot of recitals and performances and competitions, and kids like that generally do play like robots, they play the piece exactly the way the teacher taught them, every nuance, every shaping of the notes and of tempo and dynamics, was exactly copied from the teacher, and it shows. Very little passion, reminds me of the criticism for opera singers who “plant and sing” rather then act, and stage presence is near 0. </p>
<p>One note, you have to be careful, because kids learn early on what to say,because sometimes that is part of competitions, you get this flowing line about how they love the music, how this inspired them and so forth…and meanwhile, if you questioned them a bit deeper, it would become apparent they didn’t have much feeling. It is like with the ‘prodigies’ you see thrown around, the parents are driving them, they have them on you tube videos, they have them on tv talk shows, and traipse them over hill and dale, promoting them as ‘prodigies’ and so forth, but then when interviewed, it is always “oh, no, we didn’t push them, it was all them” which is a crock of rancid butter.</p>
<p>It could be the daughter is an exception, that she loves the music despite being forced, but it is rare IME. It would be interesting to ask Chua if she and her family went to concerts other then where the daughter was playing, did they regulary go to concerts or listen to the music at home…want to bet they don’t?</p>
<p>Again, the problem is choosing something only if it has some ‘value’ outside of what it is. Music in all forms, whether it is classical, rock, jazz, folk music, native music and so forth is an art form, with its own worth and benefits. People like Chua see it as some sort of notch on the belt, and I question whether or not the kids who are forced to play in this mold really get anything out of it, I can tell you that music certainly doesn’t. I can almost guarantee you that once they get into the college of their choice, they will stop playing the instrument as fast as they can, and more importantly, music will not be a part of their life, they won’t be part of future audiences, buy the music and listen to it, looking around a concert hall tells you that, they have taken what they want from the music, and then throw it aside like a used candy wrapper. Music will only enter their life again I would guess when they have kids and decide to repeat the cycle.</p>
<p>With music or anything else, when it is done in a prescribed fashion, when inate properties like emotional transcendence or understanding is taken out, when life becomes a series of steps that have ‘value’ and that is all there is, tremendous things are lost IMO, and those are part of the fabric of the success of western society, among which is, as rough as it has been at times, in bringing in ideas from other places and using them, of a weird kind of common culture that thrives because it does allow change. Part of the reason China declined the way it did (and why China under Mao didn’t exactly set the world on fire) and why Japan has become an economic basket case is because of the kind of rigid thinking people like Chua have, a view that only certain things are right, measure success, etc, where you define everything out like instructions on mapquest. When someone can explore, define their own path, find their own answers, you lay the seeds for change and yes, improvement, and it is rarely the narrow focused methods of the Chuas.</p>
<p>@musicprnt – your posts #1382 and #1383 were just outstanding, as were the contributions from QuantMech and oldfort on the same topic.</p>
<p>It was a connection I saw earlier but couldn’t get my head around enough to bring it up. One of my best friends is from China, he emigrated here 30 years ago to attend graduate school, which is where I met him. The first time we had a conversation about life in China he got very emotional. He talked about what life was like under the communist regime, how there are no opportunities to live the kind of life you can in this country. He came here without even knowing the language and was very successful in a very difficult program as well as being well liked by his fellow students. I asked him once why the stress of the program didn’t get to him more, he said it was because no matter how difficult the program was he was determined to succeed because the possibilities that existed for him in China were nothing, here the sky was the limit.</p>
<p>People from China emigrate here because it is the land of opportunity. This is indeed a great country and why is that? In my opinion the times our country moved forward were during populist movements. The women’s movement, the civil rights movement, these were all begun by people who were not afraid to speak their mind, who were not afraid to be uncompliant and disobedient. They were led by people who knew how to think independently without regard to all the people telling them “You’re wrong, this is the way that it will be”. Then other people began to listen to these early leaders and a following was born. Movements began to pick up steam, people in power started to listen and civil rights legislation and equal rights legislation was enacted.</p>
<p>This is a broader societal view but parallels can be seen in how families are. Does a family encourage a kid to think independently, to speak up, to never accept a seat in the back of the bus? Or does the family raise a kid who is obedient and accomplished? It doesn’t have to be either or of course, ideally we would like our kids to be both. No one wants a kid who is out of control and misbehaving in public. But at the same time I don’t want to extinguish my kid’s free will. What made this country great is its movers and shakers and innovators.</p>
<p>musicprnt, I get what you are saying about kids doing things for the love of it, especially with regard to music. Maybe the Chua girls aren’t really in it for the love of music, (both girls now practice on their own), but there are benefits to her methods other than being the best musician.The question for me has always been…how do/will the Chua girls feel about the way they were raised. To me, the common ultimate goal is raising children that are satisfied with life, who have that elusive genuine self-esteem, which in turn leads to resilience, continued motivation and general success. I don’t think any of us can know whether Chua’s daughters are going to have major mental health problems or unhappy lives. My prediction, based on my amateur study of child psychology and my own particular parental experience, is they will not. </p>
<p>So now I’ll give you the story of my less than perfect parentin: My kids both started the piano early on, they were certainly willing and excited at first and the deal was they could later choose a different instrument when they had a base in piano. I quickly saw that I had to establish a practice routine, otherwise I’d be throwing away money, because they would never progress and probably soon give it up. So my girls started with 10 minutes a day in first grade and increased by 10 minutes each year. By third grade they picked up other instruments (violin and flute) by their choice,and agreed to continue with piano, but again I had to impose conditions about practicing and made them (sometimes with great difficulty) stick to them. By middle school, if I recall correctly, they were practicing for a total of an hour between the two instruments. I still made it a requirement, and they didn’t do it for the love of practicing. We had many battles over this through the years and I imposed my will in a way that many here would think horrifying. However, they DID enjoy playing in concerts and school functions, and D1 later was happy in a band playing the electric violin. I always offered to let them quit at the end of each year (never in the middle) and they never wanted to. They had goals with the ABRSM exams and by high school pretty much practiced when they wanted to.</p>
<p>Now my girls certainly aren’t professional-level musicians, and while we have some appreciation of music, we’re not like some families that live and breath music. As I said earlier one continues to play in college (flute), but the other finds herself too busy but does says she will go back to it when she has time. The girls participated in many other activities over the years and have a variety of interests. If you ask me if I think it was worth “forcing” my kids to practice, I will absolutely say yes. But more importantly, my daughters wholeheartedly agree–they are already glad, at ages 18 and 20, that their mother stood firm when they were pouting and pleading to get out of practice. </p>
<p>And of course it’s not just the specific skill they acquired with their effort. They learned the lesson that hard and tedious work pays off. I do think that carries over to other aspects of their lives.</p>
<p>Now Amy Chua had a different, much stricter plan for her daughters, she was much more extreme and determined in the laws she laid down than I, but I’m not going to judge that it was wrong, until I find out the honest results. As a teacher friend once said to me regarding the results of parenting, “The proof is in the pudding”.</p>
<p>The overall mindset of Chua-style parenting is that there is a rigid blueprint for life. That if you punch the right things (learn piano - check, get 4.0 - check, get 2400 SAT - check), that a) the world will reward you (get into an Ivy, get a “good” job which is narrowly defined as one that makes a lot of money) and b) “success” will be yours. This isn’t how America works. This is why they are untold discussions on cc from kids who “don’t understand” why someone with lower grades / scores got in, because they cannot comprehend that it’s not all about punching certain buttons and expecting college admissions to fall out cleanly. America rewards authenticity and passion, not dutiful button pushing. Is that “better”? Well, a heck of a lot of people sacrifice a heck of a lot to come live here, because we are the land of opportunity. Are there an appreciable number of Americans emigrating to China, or desiring to enter their universities? Why not?</p>
<p>With all due respect, wildwood, your level of parental insistence on practice is nowhere near Chua levels. You can’t compare it at all. Was your parental insistence accompanied by insults when the children didn’t master a piece? Did your kids miss out on the sights on family vacation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being an American, I guess I do disagree that isn’t how America works. You may not need 2400, but 2100 ain’t going to get into many Ivies, not even lower Ivies. Colleges admit hollistically (maybe), but you need to be in the ball park in order to play. My daughter’s best friend coming out of Cornell, with 3.9 and extremely high LSAT was an automatic admit to Duke, and many other top tier schools. With a law degree from Columbia, Harvard or Stanford, she would have an option of working at any top law firms, very quickly making few hundred thousands in the first years, or she could go into non-profit, which is what she wants to do. </p>
<p>Most reputable consulting firms or finance companies will not recruit at non-target schools, and many of them require 3.5+ GPA. Maybe it is not the case 20+ years ago, but now because of competition, more firms are more prescritive when it comes to hiring. Those objective qualities may not be the only things firms look at, but for those first jobs they are what many firms use to determine if someone even makes it to the first interview.</p>
<p>There are people who have started their own business, and made their fortune without much of education, but of 10 people whom I have known to do that, majority of them have failed. I know a lot more people with various professional education who are putting food on the table for their family.</p>
<p>My bigger point is that attending an ivy or similar elite school isn’t the only path to success, and there are tons of jobs and careers out there other than finance and I-banking. It’s of little importance if someone is shut out of those very narrow specific fields. They are not the sole definition of good jobs. I find the cc emphasis on those fields amusing, naive and out of touch with the real world and the many, many ways in which money can be made. Like inventing or producing actual goods and services.</p>
<p>Look, if I go to a dinner party, I can easily find myself in a room of people who live in $2 million dollar homes, maybe have a second home, travel first class and enjoy all the accoutrements of a nice lifestyle. Not Donald Trump, but certainly nice enough. And plenty of them will be non elite educated! Maybe they have great sales skills, or built a better mousetrap, or a great sense for starting a business. I find the cc mentality that you only get great riches if you punched the ticket at HYP laughably naive. I also find the whole Ivy-striving very wannabe, and wannabe is the polar opposite of elite.</p>
<p>I don’t think we are really that naive and out of touch. I was part of start up business 3 times, and one of them was my own. Out of the 3, one was successful. It became successful 15 years later, by then I have already left because there was not enough cashflow to support all of us. In my life, I have owned software company, a retail store, be part of .com, and worked at most of IBs (many of them do not exist any more). I know what it takes to work outside of the norm. I have also worked at one or two regular American companies, they paid below 100K and my biggest hope was to get the 3-6% annual raise. Thanks, but no thanks. </p>
<p>We know of people who own chains of gas stations, dry cleaners, car dealerships, small stores, but many of them inherited those business from their family. They have been passed down from one generation to another.</p>
<p>The book finally came in from the library and I’ve spent an enjoyable afternoon reading it. I thought the first half was amusing and breezy, but in the end, I’m left feeling like I’ve eaten some sort of puffy pastry with an incredibly fancy name. It was fun, but not nearly as insightful as I was led to believe. Ms Chua is apparently the only person to discover that different children have different personalities and respond differently to parental input, and that parenting requires flexibility as the children move through various ages and stages.</p>
<p>I’m glad I didn’t spend my money on it. I found her as boring and predictable as she claims her non-cavier-tasting daughter is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel like you keep missing the point Pizzagirl. It is a question of degree and who can say where the line should be drawn? Yes, I did yell at my kids sometimes and hurt their feelings–they’ve turned out strong and confident, and we are very close. They also hurt mine sometimes, but I was never worried they didn’t love me. Even if Chua was 10 or 100 times tougher than I was, how can you judge that it was wrong, if you don’t know the results? You can’t have read the book and not realize that there was also love and closeness between mother and daughters, as well as the conflict.</p>
<p>Many have accepted here that there are varying parenting styles that work, and are conducive to differing positive outcomes. And we seem to agree that we all make mistakes and have regrets. For all her faults, if Chua produced kids that won’t succumb to eating disorders, depression, self-destructive or anti-social behavior and who will contribute positively to society, I’d say she did a fine job.</p>
<p>Oldfort – first of all, you know I respect and admire you very much. One thing puzzles me. We were talking unthread about paths to success and you jumped to “most finance and consulting jobs won’t talk to anyone outside of certain target schools, and certainly not with a sub 3.5 GPA.”. I agree! But it feels like a non sequitur to me.</p>
<p>If here are all the different paths one could take to success …</p>
<p>ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ</p>
<p>Then why is it relevant that paths Q and R might very well be closed to those who don’t attend certain target schools? Who cares? There are 24 other paths left.</p>
<p>Wildwood - even if Chua’s daughters didn’t mind, I think it’s ridiculous to schlep the kids (and the in-laws) to Greece and then have everyone miss out on seeing the sights because it was more important the kids get in a few hours of piano practice. (in the book, they MISSED the sights. This wasn’t just “oh, they got a late start.”). Even if Lulu loves playing the donkey piece, I think it’s ridiculous to keep a 7 yo up late, chained to the piano without a bathroom break. I disagree that the relevant measure is “how the girls feel about it.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think your standards are too low. I would call what you described “a minimal job,” of parenting.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl - the point I am trying to make is, even though there are many different ways to success, by getting high stats and good education is a very reasonable way to success, and it shouldn’t be so quickly dismissed. It is a very reasonable path for most people to take.</p>
<p>To quote my BIL (who is Italian), “If you get out of Stanford Law with top grades, guess where you would get a job? Top tier law firm. If you get out of Stanford Law with bad grades, guess where you would get a job? Top tier law firm.” With this kind of mentality, why wouldn’t people want to go to Stanford Law if they could. Yes, people could go to a State X law school and still able to do well financially, but what’s the probability of that vs from Stanford Law.</p>
<p>There are a lot of people who are entrepreneurs without a college degree, or went to a no name school. But those same entrepreneurs are paying good money to send their kids to top tier schools. Why? I know one very famous soft drink owner who was willing to contribute large amount of money to get his second marriage young children into my kids’ school. </p>
<p>Maybe getting a good education is not the only way of getting ahead in life, but it is certainly a good way. To say people who may have that view are naive and out of touch is not exactly correct.</p>