<p>Your viewpoint just seems sensible and hardly arrogant to me, PG.</p>
<p>Since my only kid is off to college next year, it’s too late for her. Already ruined her chances at becoming a super overachiever. Maybe if I read all the books I can become a tiger grandmother someday. Perhaps there is a book in that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it is very clear that you misinterpreted it. They say the triple package has a dark underside too so you should use it, but then kick it away to break free from it’s constraints. It is not about kicking it away to “preclude others from obtaining the same results” - it is to avoid the darkside.</p>
<p>Besides, how is someone who decides not just to teach college but to write a book about how she achieved results that others seek (how to have kids who are music or academic whizes) the profile of someone trying to preclude others from obtaining the same results?</p>
<p>LOL. She is doing the exact opposite. </p>
<p>(yes, you can argue her methods, but it is ludicrous to argue that she is trying to preclude others from doing what she has done).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, for many, the measure of success is not defined by economics or financial success. I know plenty of people who measure their success in life through finding love and happiness. Are the Bhutanese who love a “happiness” currency really unsuccessful in life, even if living the life of a modest goatherder? </p>
<p>Just as meritocracy has been “misinterpreted” many times --See <a href=“http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment--[/url]”>http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment--</a> so is the definition of success. It is undeniable that parents want the utmost for their children --when they are able to do do-- but there is more than collecting stratospheric scores and uber-selective college admissions. The lifespan of a child living with his family is rather short at a lot less than two decades --at least in normal economic conditions that do no force graduates to return to the cocoon-- and that time should be one of warmth, compassion, unconditional love, and understanding. </p>
<p>And not for the modeling of a perfect child or a new Furby clone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is superior for you, sure. Because that is what you value. </p>
<p>Other people value different things. For instance, someone like the late Mother Teresa might have valued donating all that money you spend on travel to the truly needy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you say so …</p>
<p>The apologists for Amy Chua are hilarious, considering that her primary purpose for publishing this great book was financially motivated (I’m sorry if you’re not seeing this, but honestly, this seems to be the only conceivable reason for why she is doing something so controversial that could completely jeopardize her career).</p>
<p>I am not a apologist and do not like what she has been doing. (Stir up all these controversy issues.)</p>
<p>You can say whatever you want to say. But more likely than not, her career and her husband’s career are likely more than OK than most people. (Tenure! I guess that if she has the kind of job most have, it is more likely she would be in a trouble. This is exactly what the tenure is for.)</p>
<p>I believe both she and her husband share the same thoughts as described in the book. How come most are inclined to attack her instead of both parents?</p>
<p>I still have a hard time calling someone born in America to Filipino parents and has mixed-race kids Chinese… Why isn’t her book about why American mothers are better if she’s writing about herself?</p>
<p>I understand that she’s obviously trying to sell to a particular market (those with China envy) but I don’t understand why people are buying it. I didn’t even read the article but I absolutely don’t see how she can try to claim racial superiority with mixed race kids, a bigger hypocrisy than Thurmond.</p>
<p>Hunt - so the second daughter is also admitted to Yale early? </p>
<p>They seem 4 years apart but not necessarily for college admissions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, of course. Isn’t that evident? I value the things I value because those are my values. So it’s of little relevance to me that Amy Chua has the guaranteed-failproof-way-of-getting-your-kid-to-Harvard-at-any-cost, because I’m not so unsophisticated to think that Harvard is the be-all-end-all of life and ESPECIALLY not if the cost is the child’s psyche. Indeed, so much of this is motivated by success as viewed or reflected in other people’s eyes, and that’s a value I, myself, do not value much at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe the celebrity status will help her kids get into college or maybe it will lead to a reality show for the whole family.</p>
<p>
And that would be a dark day indeed. Giving people air time for being ridiculous. :P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^Well, that’s pretty much the premise for the majority of reality shows out there.</p>
<p>It should be easier for the second D to get into a school where both of her parents are faculty there. No doubt about it.</p>
<p>If the parents are in the working class and do not have access to many resources, it is totally another story.</p>
<p>I hypothetically assume that there are three types of “Tiger Moms”.</p>
<p>Type I are strategic and long-term minded enough to design DSs long-term path with full understanding of education system and efficient ways of success (subjective concept, I believe) AND are very careful enough to communicate fully with her DS emotionally and psychologically.</p>
<p>Type II are strategic and long-term minded enough to design DSs long-term path BUT are not sufficient to communicate fully with her DS emotionally and psychologically. DS of this type mom might show high-achieving performance as kids of type I do. But they might have some mind of disobey against mom and may not develop intrinsic motivation to study and life fully.</p>
<p>Type III are just tiger mom without strategic and long-term mindedness AND without emotional and psychological communication with her DS. DS under this parenting might be hurted physically as well as psychologically but are difficult to show high achievements.</p>
<p>Amy Chua are probably Type I so her DS have no problem even at college.</p>
<p>DS entering prestigious colleges under the type II parenting might face some challenges because of less developments in self-motivation, experiences (from trial and errors) and communication and management skills. Most of them might overcome these difficulties finally but some might not.</p>
<p>The point of my hypothetical argument is that there are lots of variation in Tiger Moms and implications to kids achievements. So, we are very careful for Hasty Generalization (drawing a general conclusion from a tiny sample) and Sweeping Generalization (applying a general rule too broadly).</p>
<p>Not everyone of the kids can be pushed the same way as Tiger Mom Chua did. If you push too hard, the kids may break down. It is not one size fits all situation. So the book is worthless to me.</p>
<p>Many of you are talking about her previous book that you haven’t read, not her (and his) new book that you haven’t read either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where has she EVER claimed racial superiority?</p>
<p>@Sorghum…did tiger mom parenting techniques work for your children? I’m genuinely interested to know what insights you may have gained, and what type of results were achieved. I think that it would help to add another dimension to this argument if you will.</p>
<p>A reasonable question, but I didn’t use tiger mom techniques. I used an unschooling form of home schooling, had plenty books around, traveled to about 30 countries. The result was summa cum laude at a ‘top-10’ LAC.</p>
<p>I think we often impose a heavy burden of trivial work on kids, and I really don’t like the accumulation of busywork to get a high GPA that goes on in most high schools. If a child is intelligent and likes to read, and has an educated parent to discuss things with, they can learn much more.</p>
<p>I am defending Amy Chua’s right to be fairly heard, not necessarily her ideas.</p>