I remember when DS was six, we went out to lunch with a PG friend and his family. The placemats had state trivia on them. The boys competed to see who knew more capitals. My son ended up knowing more, but I didn't think it was a big deal. It certainly didn't make me think that my son must be smarter. The other mom seemed a bit flustered, and said, "We haven't done states and capitals yet". I just let it pass, but actually, my son hadn't ever studied capitals either. Whatever he knew, it was learned from incidental occurrences and the USA map puzzle which he adored at age two.
I just wanted to point out that more structured learning works well for some, but it isn't the only way to go. I don't want readers to think that they are letting their kids down if they don't have such impressive lists of subjects and curricula.
Thanks for all the responses on my hot housing comment. I don't really worry about people who know me thinking that of me, as it is SO far from the truth, as Kriston pointed out. But there are a lot of lurkers here who might get the idea that they "need" to get workbooks for their two year old. I don't want to give the wrong impression.
