Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy academically competitive

Well, obviously there's a difference between healthy and unhealthy levels of competitiveness.

For my part, I always wanted to have the best grades, but I didn't worry too much about it if I didn't. I never once entertained the idea of becoming class valedictorian, because I knew that accomplishing that would involve a whole lot more effort on homework than I was willing to give, because at the top levels of a large high school (graduating class ~1000), that's what it would take to be the best. If someone else wanted to do homework four hours a night, let them. I'd take a C on my Trig/Pre-calc homework notebook and an overall markdown to a B, thanks. I had better things to do with that time.

Instead, I graduated somewhere in the back half of the top 50, with people both above and below me who'd given themselves physical or psychological issues to get there.

Those are the type comments that make me cringe too. I am assuming this woman is living through her kid and wants what is best for HER, not her child. Well, that will likely backfire as her child gets older. I also see performance anxiety all over this situation.

What you are doing is the right thing.

I was not the kid who strove for A's. Get the A then indulge my interests. But I did perk up when there were some very hard problems that others struggled with.

But I still got the "set the curve" comments in HS and college.

Its interesting to think that the "Texas Cheerleader Murder" parents exist in other areas....

Which then brings up the question, if your child is intelligent enough to get a full scholarship, but doesn't work hard enough in high school to get it, should you still pay for college?

I think the original post describing the other mom was very weird- I mean, how do they know for sure that in 7 years, your child will be the only competition for the scholarship? Maybe they have moved away or their kid isn't making the top grades and test scores the child is capable of? It's nice, I guess, that your child is an "academic threat," but that is so weird!
Some academic competition is good and too much is bad, I think.
We are in a heavily "Tiger Mom" area. My son's best friend in third grade is Chinese and goes to Chinese school each week, one hour violin, and 2 hours piano every day! The boy seems heavily depressed all of the time. He is not a dumb kid but not as smart, probably, as his parents hope he is. I just don't think it is worth it to make your child so profoundly miserable all of the time like that.

I don't see any reason to. How would college be the best environment for a kid like the one you describe?

Yeah. Good point. HS has a lot more smarties than Middle School. 1 or 2 per middle school means 4-10 in HS. In addition, other kids will mature in HS and become focused as well.


WOW! I agree.

But I can see it.

Two parents of six year olds at Mr W's old school made comments about him as a 3 year old taking piano lessons with a 6 year old to the Piano teacher. They seemed to think their kids should be "ahead" of him and in the "advanced" group.

One mom asked DW how much we "work with him" and just did not believe that we don't do much at all. (And feel guilty that we don't..) Heck, we can't stop him from singing all the time, picking out CDs at the store, or telling us which songs he wants to listen to in the car.

I thought she was talking about statewide scholarships.

Although, to your point, there is also the issue of strategic enrollment.

For instance, my sister-in-law was transferred from a harder high school (where her more intelligent brother graduated valedictorian) to an easier high school to increase the chances that she would do well. It worked and she managed to get first in her class and snag a full scholarship to a state school in the process. Although this is only practical when you own different houses in different school districts.

I agree with you that it is brutal for the child. But I suspect you misunderstand the reason why it happens. I will explain this using some statistics and tying to an article I read from The Economist about two years ago.

The statistics show that selective colleges, in an effort to promote "diversity", demand different levels of achievement from each race. A recent Business Week article quoted a Princeton sociologist named Thomas Espenshade. He wrote in 2009 that on an 1600 point SAT test, if all other credentials are equal, an Asian American needed to score 140 points more than whites, 270 points more than Hispanics, and 450 points more than Arfican-Americans to have an equal chance of admission to a private school.

The Economist article from two years ago is called Sex and the Single Black Woman. Here is the opening paragraph:
"IMAGINE that the world consists of 20 men and 20 women, all of them heterosexual and in search of a mate. Since the numbers are even, everyone can find a partner. But what happens if you take away one man? You might not think this would make much difference. You would be wrong, argues Tim Harford, a British economist, in a book called The Logic of Life. With 20 women pursuing 19 men, one woman faces the prospect of spinsterhood. So she ups her game. Perhaps she dresses more seductively. Perhaps she makes an extra effort to be obliging. Somehow or other, she “steals” a man from one of her fellow women. That newly single woman then ups her game, too, to steal a man from someone else. A chain reaction ensues. Before long, every woman has to try harder, and every man can relax a little."

Back to the tiger mom issue. The tiger mom knows her child has to compete against other highly capable Asian kids for entry into selective college. So she tries to up her child's game by seeking the highest academic and extracurricular achievements. Other Asians notice this too, and soon there is an arms race for achievements. The Supreme court has recently agreed to hear a Texas case on racial discrimination in selective colleges. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

PS: This last bit is off topic, but the Economist article also suggests implications about sending daughters to colleges where the majority of students are women. Would the less attractive college women who "upped their game" also force a chain reaction there?

So, once again, the problem seems to be parents living through their children.

And then you get into the Ivy League college, but you can't afford it.

Winning!