Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother - new book about Chinese parenting

<p>I guess to me the purpose of ensuring my kids have a good education has very little to do with how much money they will eventually make, or trying to ensure they catapult into some socioeconomic level. </p>

<p>I actuaaly observe the opposite from you. The families with the most money aren’t obsessed with getting their kids into Ivies or similar elite schools. They want their kids to have experiences, not punched entry tickets. And, they know their kids were born on third base in the first place.</p>

<p>“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>The lawyer I know who makes gobs of money went to Tulane (50ish) and Notre Dame law school (don’t know the rank, but not a top 14). HE hustled and made his money. Not his law school. I think it’s disingenuous to suggest that it’s “rare” for people not at top law schools to do just fine financially. The North Shore of Chicago is chock full of such people.</p>

<p>Oldfort-</p>

<p>The problem with your reasoning is similar to Chuas in that you are using a very small percentage of the work force as an example of success and then saying if you don’t do X, you don’t get to work there. The kind of financial firms and consulting firms you are talking about, or the high end law firms, are a very, very small part of the picture out there, they represent one kind of success that isn’t typical. Yeah, the people running the show at investment banking houses, the top law firms, and the big consulting firms like McKimsey and so forth, but so what? Yes, if you want to go that route, you better go to a top 10 school, you better get an MBA or a law degree from a top 10 school, that is generally the way they operate, but that is such a small group defining that as American success is ridiculous. </p>

<p>For example, a lot of top executives at companies didn’t go to Ivy league schools, yet they made it to the top. People founding tech companies didnt necessarily go to the ivy league, and for example Jobs and Wozniak were college dropouts when they founded Apple…</p>

<p>The point being that success is so narrowly defined, you are defining it according to a standard that doesn’t exist. Yes, a lot of famous people have gone to ivy league schools, but a lot of famous people didn’t. There are scientists and economists and business people and tech geniuses who didn’t go to ivies, there are successful doctors and lawyers who didn’t go to Harvard or Yale (my cousin went to second tier schools, today he has his own firm and makes more then the schlubs at many white shoe law firms make as partners <em>shrug</em>). Is being a success making 1 million or two million a year? Is a success someone who pulls in millions from their legal practice? What is the definition? There are a lot of people who make very little but feel their work is important, people who work for non profits, people doing medical research, all of which tend not to pay that great. So someone from an ivy league law school can get a job at a non profit, so can someone from a non ivy league law school <em>shrug</em>. </p>

<p>And other in those limited examples, ivy league educations stop meaning something after you start working, it is what you do that matters, which is an important point, with some exceptions (and maybe a lot of people don’t consider investment banking or working for a big law firm to be such a hot thing, either, some people have moral qualms about working in those kind of places). </p>

<p>The other thing is, I would ask a question, all those 4.0 GPA and 2400 types who go to Ivies and then go out there, how many of them really do something?. How many help create something new, how many of them created the best new thing? Did they do that, or simply make a lot of money? The point being, that maybe, just maybe, there is more to life then making a lot of money…</p>

<p>As a parent I very much wish that my kids can freely chose whatever they want to do in life, including whatever college they want to attend. If they make into Ivies but chose to go to a local community college, it’s fine.</p>

<p>Wildwood-</p>

<p>I understand what you are saying, obviously with music if the kid doesn’t practice they aren’t going to get anywhere, and anyone with a student studying an instrument, including myself, have had at times to lay down the law to practice and so forth or help the student through a rough spot, there comes a point where either the child starts practicing or they may as well give up. </p>

<p>But comparing that to what Chua did is a stretch, because in your case, and in mine, there wasn’t the level of manicness. It doesn’t sound like you demanded they play an instrument, told them which one to play, and then obsessed that they be #1, made them practice without going to the bathroom or having water and the like, there is a big difference between that and what she did. Of course you as a parent got irritated at the kid and yelled at them, few parents don’t (including myself, especially now with a teenager, oye), sometimes we say things we regret, but that is quite different then using belittlement and yelling as a ‘teaching tool’. If I had to do that with my son with his playing, I would tell him to give it up, it was obvious he didn’t want to do it. </p>

<p>As far as what happens with Chua’s kids you are correct, we can’t know (and probably won’t know) until they grow up, and it is quite possible they will be fine. I will add, though, that that isn’t necessarily a pat on the back for what she did, keep in mind that kids of parents who are truly abusive can end up doing well for themselves, people are resilient, but one doesn’t correlate to another. I also wonder what the kid’s relationship will be with her down the road, if they will end up respecting what their mom did or if they will distance themselves or have other issues. Put it this way, therapist offices are full of bright, successful people trying to figure out why they aren’t happy, despite the fact that according to many “they have it made”. </p>

<p>Oldfort talked about going to an ivy or top school and getting that job in investment banking or at a top law firm, for example. I can’t talk about top law firms, but I can talk about IB, having worked in the financial industry a long time. In that world, the divorce rate is sky high, the burnout rate is tremendous, things like alchoholism and drug use are pretty common and other ills like depression and the like aren’t unknown either. People who live that life often sell their soul to do it…is that success? Could it be that the people who stick with that kind of life do so because they themselves are screwed up? (I ask that hypothetically, I am not saying that is the case). The old saying that all that glitters is not gold is very true. </p>

<p>My biggest problem with the Chua method, that neither you nor I have done, is this obsession with competition, with being #1 as the ultimate goal. That probably works great in things like investment banking or law because those are cut throat professions, in IB the bankers do anything they can to outdo coworkers, if a colleague leaves their laptop on their desk and walks away, for example, colleagues will often go through the laptop to see what they are working on, steal the information, and go after the lead themselves, often deleting the information from the laptop (my wife worked in an investment bank as a support accountant a while ago, at that firm the bankers had roll top desks that they securely locked each night, not against outside people seeing stuff, but from each other; at another firm, bankers freaked out at having a computerized call tracking and deal tracking system, because they were mortally afraid that a colleage would hack in, grab their information and run on it). The problem is, in things like music, or in most business environments, that kind of mentality works against what someone is trying to do. If your whole outlook is colleagues are competitors, that everyone else is your enemy in your path, you won’t do well in the real world, because among other things, people generally work with others and often have to sacrifice things they are working on to help others succeed (in fact, in a lot of companies, that is a big rating item on reviews, working in a team, sacrificing your own stuff to help others succeed, etc). Someone brought up like Chua did has this idea it is them against everyone else, and that won’t work well unless they are in a lone eagle kind of thing. I can just see someone like that as a surgeon refusing to help a patient in serious straits, because with the patient likely to die, it would look bad on their record <em>gag</em></p>

<p>I was reading something recently in the NY Times about a church here in NYC, it is a presbytyrian mega church (kind of weird for NYC), and it has, among other members, a fairly large Asian contingent, many of whom are young, successful professionals which surprised the reporter. The reporter asked the pastor of the church, and he said many of them seemed to be drawn to the church because it had as part of its message that success wasn’t everything, that there is more to life then that successful career and high income, that there are things in life not related to that, and these young people were hearing this message for the first time in their lives and it resonated with them, it was a place where for the first time in their lives they could actually sit back and think “what I am meant to do on this earth? Who am I” rather then being told “This is what you are”.
While no one as far as I know have done longitudinal studies on kids raised by parents like Chua, to track what happens to them, anecdotal evidence I have heard/read seems to say that with these kids, either they rebel and push off the path their parents set for them and find their own thing, or that many of them end up unhappy, that things like suicide, alcoholism, drug abuse may be much higher among kids raised like this as they go into adulthood (it also probably would be hard to find out, because especially in the case of people of Asian background, things like suicide or drug or alchohol use, or depression, are considered marks of shame against the family and are kept secret). </p>

<p>As far as criticizing her, I am because she was the one stupid enough to write a book about this and put it out there, and when you have idiotic things being said, like this is ‘superior parenting’, or other idiots lauding this as the path to success, it is going to draw fire. Not to mention it also doesn’t put her in a great light as a parent either IMO, because she drew her kids into this, her family and as a parent I am aghast at that, that is putting yourself out there in the public eye to aggrandize herself and it is at her kid’s and spouses expense, especially as her kids are not yet adults and out on their own. Maybe thats my own personal thing, but it is why I find parents with ‘musical prodigies’ or people who push their kids into the spotlight, like Lindsay Lohans mom, to be repulsive, if they want to make fools of themselves I could care less, but using your family, or your kids, to make a name for yourself is pathetic IMO, as a parent we are supposed to protect our kids as best we can, not put them out there to make a name for ourselves…I better stop, next thing might be nuclear warfare <em>smile</em></p>

<p>There’s something to be said for assisting a child in preserving future opportunities. I saw one aspect of my role as parent being to ensure that my children didn’t inadvertently, or even deliberately, close too many doors of potential before the age of 18. For example, I wanted them to be ethical, moral people who do the right thing, because it’s the right thing, and also so they stay out of trouble. A police record and jail time will certainly close doors for you. I wanted them to be self-controlled and emotionally healthy, so they would avoid pitfalls like teen pregnancy or self-destructive behavior like addictions. And I also wanted them to achieve as much academically and extra-curricularly as possible. so that whatever field or educational program they decided to eventually pursue, they could do so with ease. You aren’t getting into a 7-year med program with only remedial level math classes or a low GPA and SAT scores.</p>

<p>Those things were part of a fixed path of success that I laid out, as would most of us. But it was only a framework for the child to build upon, and it’s purpose was to preserve freedom of choice for the child as s/ he became mature enough to decide specifics for him/herself.</p>

<p>Chua’s method involved her laying out way more than just a framework and allowed little freedom of choice for her children. She pre-selected the actual details of the structure to be built on the framework.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That is absolutely correct. What’s the percentage of people that make over 100k, 200k, or 300k? If it’s not your definition of sucess, so what <em>shrug</em>. On the other hand, I personally feel the fact that I do not need to answer to anyone about where my kids could go to college, and I have the means to allow them to take up any ECs they want is MINE definition of success. I am not out there changing the world, but my family is extremely self -sufficient, and the amount of tax I’ve paid probably has helped out a lot of people.</p>

<p>I don’t quite understand your post at all. I don’t think I, or anyone here, has ever said that by going to top schools guaranteed success in life (whatever that maybe). The only thing I said was it was A WAY, but not the only way. Just because someone viewed it as a way to success, it doesn’t make him/her naive or out of touch, because I personally know of many examples of people who have done well because of good education (maybe narrow minded, but it’s my world).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But someone from a top law school could have a better chance of getting a job at a nationally or globally known law firm (for profit) than someone from a no name school, and that’s a valuable option.</p>

<p>I have 2 girls. At the end of day, they will need to decide what they want to do with their lives someday- a power job, stay home mom, be a government officer, work for non-profit… As a parent, I will do all I can so they could have as many options later in life. For me, it means graduating without a debt, have good enough education to not hold them back in pursuing a career they want, and are brought up with good manners so they would know what to do in any social situation.</p>

<p>musicprnt - the issue I have with posts like yours is that just because someone doesn’t agree with your idea of what success is, it doesn’t mean it’s narrow minded. I could easily turn around to say that it is because you don’t know better.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not that I support Chua in any way, but I’m just playing the Devil’s Advocate here. I do realize that it’s an ethical thing for a parent to allow a certain amount of freedom for the child to build him/herself upon, but to what extent? And more importantly, why?</p>

<p>Your reasoning is well… reasonable. But what constitutes this said “framework” as what a parent must build? Who are you to say that your methods of raising your children is the proper framework, and Chua’s isn’t? Sure her children may have less say in what they do in their school, but ultimately, we know that Chua does it in their best interests. I’m sure just because Chua’s children had less freedom than most children their age did doesn’t mean that they’ll grow up to become socially incapable or co-dependent.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I hope you know that’s not why they need to lock up those things, right? It is part of information security that we are required to adhere to. We cannot have have any papers on our desk or leave our computers unlocked. It’s called “clean desk” policy. We are spending millions of $$ to make sure our customer information is not stolen. We have software to track if any inappropriate information is sent to people’s personal emails from work. We have that software in place, not to be cutthroat, but it is required by the government. We also record most phone calls just in case if there is any dispute with a transaction.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Did anyone watch The Black Swan? My kids have been dancing since 3. They compete for parts for every recital, and they audition with thousands of dancers for few spots at each summer intensive. When I played in our school orchestra, I always hoped my best friend (first chair) wouldn’t show up (or be sick), so I could have her spot. </p>

<p>What about people in advertising, fashion (I think I remember Devil Wears Prada)? Real Estate agents? Are they not cut throat? Tell me one profession that requires excellence is not cut throat.</p>

<p>My daughter danced and auditioned for parts from age 3 on up. She did her best at the auditions and sometimes she got a good part, sometimes not. When not, she shrugged it off. She auditioned for some of those summer intensive programs just for the sake of getting practice, but she never wanted to attend one – she liked to lighten up & relax during the summers. </p>

<p>You don’t have to be cutthroat. When she was a kid, dancing, she understood that she was a kid, dancing – not a prima ballerina. It didn’t matter if someone else got the part. If the person who got the part was a better dancer - or did a better audition – then she deserved what she got and my d. would have been the first to congratulate her – and if the person who got the part wasn’t better, but the judging seemed biased or unfair… well, that’s the way things break. No use getting all worked up over it.</p>

<p>My kids auditioned for those summer intensives because they wanted to be there. Their reason for wanting to be there was to study with some of best instructors and dancers from around the world. This year D2 wanted to pursue something more academic, so she is not auditioning. Why do it, if one has no intention of going, the spot could be better given to someone else.<br>

Really? It is hard for me to believe that. I know it did matter to my kids. At least with my kids, I validate their feelings, I never brush it off and let them know they should feel differently (I allow them time to feel bad, and we move on). It is human to want to be the best when so much time and effort is put into it. It doesn’t mean we will always get what we want, but it is not wrong to feel bad when it doesn’t happen.</p>

<p>Sometimes people are afraid to want or compete. Some people say they don’t care in order to try mask their disappointment of failure. </p>

<p>Example:
D2 has very good stats, based on her profile, she should and could be aiming for on one of the top schools (based on her interest, ECs, location of school). But she kept on focusing on some schools which are ranked below school X. I didn’t really care that much because D1 is at one of those schools and is quite happy. One day, when D2 got a particular good news from her new high school, she said to me privately, “Mommy, you know it has always been my dream to go to school X, but I just don’t want to dream and be disappointed. With this additional achievement, maybe I could have a shot at it.” I told her, “It is always scary to put oneself out there, especially if you should fail, but you would feel better about yourself if you have at least tried. Don’t let possibility of failure (be laughed at by people) stop you from getting what you want.”</p>

<p>Ballet has been a very big part of character building for my kids. It is competitive, just like sports. They put themselves out there (half naked most of the time), and are constantly corrected and measured against other dancers. More often than not, they don’t get the part they want, but when it happens, it is very sweet.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think that is what musicprnt was saying.<br>
Even if your definition of success is making over 300K or 500K (pick your number) – and let’s all agree that that is the definition * for the sake of discussion only * – investment banking / finance / consulting are only paths Q and R to that end. </p>

<p>Even if the college you choose isn’t a target for those firms, big whoops. You still have paths ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPSTUVWXYZ. </p>

<p>The belief that those few paths are somehow easier, more important, or more lucrative is truly ludicrous. I am wondering if those in those firms have a particularly insular view of the world – that is, they never encounter anyone who makes any real money doing anything else, and so they assume that those paths are the only ones around? Do they never go to cocktail parties where they meet people who make money owning businesses or rising to the top in corporate America or, you know, actually making and selling products? </p>

<p>Do you honestly think that if you went down the street in any well-to-do suburban area (make it New Canaan, CT, or Kenilworth, IL, or pick-your-town in any well-to-do suburban area) you wouldn’t find TONS of people who have achieved economic success who didn’t follow those 2 paths, or who “merely” went to their state flagships? Of course you would.</p>

<p>oldfort,
I think the point is, that kids and people in general, don’t necessarily like dancing or piano or tennis or even competing at anything. And so they will never be happy doing those things, no matter how much you force them to do it. And if they don’t ever like those things, so what? There are probably more occupations and lifestyles in our society that are non-competitive or minimally competitive than competitive, and people do lead very happy lives doing those things.</p>

<p>@oldfort, 1430, university-based research in physics, chemistry, or mathematics is a profession that requires excellence and is not cut throat. In fact, the belief that one has to be #1 is an impediment to effective collaboration. There might be a few people around who are cut throat–I’ve heard a few anecdotes. Certainly the period as an Assistant Professor is not easy. However, all of the top scientists I know are actually exceptionally generous in their interactions with other people. They do work exceptionally hard, but that is not being cut throat.</p>

<p>PS: With the ballet intensives, if one auditions, is offered a spot, and declines it, the spot does go to someone else. I see no problem with auditioning to gauge one’s progress. Probably wouldn’t advise auditioning if there were no chance that one would go, though.</p>

<p>There are a lot of people who have followed different paths, and have done very well and very happy. I know of plenty of people, personally, who are not in those professions and have achieved economic success. </p>

<p>The difference between immigrants and born/raised Americans is that it is more of an up hill battle for immigrants. To get ahead, they need to do everything by themselves. If they went to a so-so school, they don’t have any connections to help them put their resume in front of a hiring person. They don’t know some friend’s parent who is a partner at a law firm who would give them an internship. All they have are their stats.</p>

<p>My SIL’s parents owned a dry cleaning store in NY. They didn’t speak English, and they still don’t. It was the only option had. They couldn’t open a clothing store, even a car wash store would have been difficult (remember the thread started by a kid about how his parents got picked on). Their only option was to do something that required minimum English. They raised 2 girls, paying top $$ to send them to top schools in NYC. They own multiple apartment buildings in NYC now, and that’s all from their dry cleaning store.</p>

<p>All I have been trying to say in most of my posts is that immigrants have a certain mind set because of limited options they are given. It is not because they are narrow minded, naive or not sophisticated, and don’t understand the American way. They do. They have studied American’s way of “moving up” and how to achieve “economic security,” they are looking at the cards they are dealt with and trying to even the plain field a bit.</p>

<p>Example:
Many Americans are legacies to top colleges, which is not a hook many immigrants have. Immigrants also do not have the means to donate large amount money to any universities. The only thing they have control over is their GPA, and guess what they are doing?</p>

<p>When it comes time to get that first job, most immigrants will also need to rely on their GPA and school, they have nothing else to fall back on.</p>

<p>I know a lot of people who have started their own business with no pedigree education, and a lot of them do not want their kids to follow their foot steps. They are pushing their kids to go to the best schools (not just for the sake of learning), even if it meant going back to family business. Again, it comes back to giving as many options to our kids as possible…</p>

<p>Bay - I was responding to calmom. Her daughter clearly liked ballet. I just think it is disingenuous to say one could easily shrug off the disappoint of not getting the part. The flip side of it is anyone who should be upset then is being too competitive.</p>

<p>Oldfort,</p>

<p>I’d be surprised if there weren’t fairly well-developed immigrant communities, organizations and networks in the US nowadays.</p>

<p>Btw, I once had one of those plum jobs that your Stanford law friends salivate about. I hated it, hated it, hated it. But I did it for several years because I felt it was an opportunity I shouldn’t forgo. I do regret that I didn’t spend those young years of my life doing something I liked.</p>

<p>Lately, I’ve been opening this thread and thinking about how a Chua-type parent would view Tom Sawyer painting the picket fence. Slacker?</p>

<p>Here’s my own anecdote. One of my son’s teammates is a less than exceptional student. Parents are involved, but far from Chua-style. Last semester, this kid told his dad that he was using some money he saved up to by a large quantity of plastic sunglasses with his school’s name printed on them. They cost about a dollar each, and the kid was going to sell them during Homecoming week to his schoolmates for three dollars each.</p>

<p>The kid sold his entire inventory!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think we have a lot of professors on CC, and I would like to hear what they have to say. I was thinking maybe D2 should become a professor (nice cushy job, time off, sabbatical, short hours). We have no professors in our family, but after speaking with some people, I think it’s a lot more competitive to become a tenure professor than other professions.</p>

<p>Myth: Women executives are very competitive, not team players…As someone who has been in the finance business, I have many good women friends in the same business. We are very focused, but we are very supportive of each other. I have a whole network of female friends at work who would give me heads up when something is happening (my boss always wonder how I know before most of them do).</p>

<p>In the work place (or anything we do), it’s like a pyramid, as you move up it just becomes smaller and smaller. Some people are happy to be down with the masses (nothing wrong with it), some people strive to reach that pinnacle, and that doesn’t happen without putting oneself out there (it comes with ability to handle failures and disappointments).</p>