I'm wondering what people think of this article (link below)... It is actually the complete opposite of what I have thought was good for children so it really made me think... I have always thought - Don't push kids.. let them find their own passion... have I got it all wrong?

http://professional.wsj.com/article...HTTopCarousel_1&mg=reno-secaucus-wsj

I think it's scary that she's a professor of American law at yale. I don't think she's trying to tell you how to raise your kid's. She straight out says you ain't got it in you to do it that way and if you tried you would only be half arsing it. YMWV

P.s. Besides raising two beautiful daughters she has also written several books, the latest of which this NY times article is a marketing ploy to sell.

PPS still working my way through the comments. The law she teaches is international contract law. This is her second book. Her first was about international policy's. This parenting the american geisha memoir was auctioned to a publisher for six figures. She had to make the WSJ article spicy to sell books.
PPS Entertainment Weekly gave her book a "B". Ouch.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20455695,00.html

I came across it the other day and actually stoped to read it since DD is half asian (Dh is Korean) and we constantly here somethikng about DD "of course being smart because she's asian."

So anyway, from what I took from it, was that she pushed her kids and they did great, and hosnestly we have a lot of Chinese friends and they do push there kids, and they kids seem happy. I push DD more then Dh probably would like, but I think there is a balance. Push a kid to much and you set them up to fail, push a kid in the right way and you give them the opportunity to rise to the occasion. Just my opinion, and believe me I could be totally wrong. Just going on my own upbringing. LOL

I think the point that she is trying to sell books is a good one. And she has gotten quite a bit of attention writing this provocative little article! I've seen this now posted on 3 different boards I visit.

I think as parents, unless you are 100% unschooling, we all require different things for our kids to do. It's a matter of tone and degree. I homeschool and I have been on unschooling boards. People post every single day that they are failing at unschooling and their lives have become utter chaos. BUT there are absolutely families for which that choice will be the right one. I think it require a certain kind of adult and a certain personality of child to be really successful. By degree we are laid back homeschoolers. I require some math, writing, and reading daily. But we aren't doing things like latin for an hour every day. Some homeschooling families are nose to the grindstone for 6 to 8 hours a day and that seems to work for them.

I have kids that would try or do very little without quite a bit of encouragement, at least at the preschool/early elementary ages. My brand of "encouragement" looks almost nothing like this article. I have a child working on piano, and he worked on pieces of similar difficulty at age 7. If he would have a hard time with something (physically or even just the mental angst of trying something different or hard), I would have made a deal that we would work on small passages and try the same passage 5 or 10X a day for a few minutes and be done. I might have played the other hand with him. I made have made funny donkey noises while we did it! My kids bask and really enjoy their successes. But really do need help getting over the initial hump. They both tend to be highly sensitive and dramatic and they need someone to remind them that change and trying something new might feel strange and uncomfortable, but it's important to try anyway. If my kids try something and absolutely end up hating it, I back off. I was a child that was paralyzed by my own fears of trying something new and it's not a good feeling. At age 10, my son has become much better at facing his fears and anxiety on his own. I was not doing the same at age 10.

I just think we need to know our own children. I think it's amazing if you have an entirely self motivated child who challenges themselves, but that is definitely not who my kids are.

Goodness! I wonder what this method does to children who really can't perform to the parents expectations (don't have the motor skills etc). I wonder how the suicide rate of children reared in this manner compares. I also wonder how teamwork and compassion for others can exist when everyone has to be the best or be considered a failure.

If you raise your child to only know happiness as a direct result of pleasing you, I am sure they will respond accordingly, just like a circus animal. But does this allow them to think for themselves or find their true passion?.

I grew up in a the extreme opposite environment: no expectations or pressures whatsoever. I went to a school where lesson attendance was completely optional. Some kids never went to classes at all but we all eventually found our passions and skills in our own time. It's not for everyone but it can work. Maybe we didn't become child prodigy's, but we became successful members of society.

I know out of my small cohort we have some dentists, chiropractors, investment brokers, editors, restaurant owners, business owners, IT professionals, business managers, activists, talented musicians, chefs, photographers, playwrights, cinematographers, authors, artists etc. We got to enjoy our childhoods while learning how to think for ourselves and get along with others.

I agree with with amazedmom: "Push a kid too much and you set them up to fail, push a kid in the right way and you give them the opportunity to rise to the occasion." I have found that as an adult, I have immensely enjoyed opportunities to rise to the occasion when they occurred in the work place, so I imagine it would be similar for children.

Just my 2 cents

Remember that the governor of PA wrote that "we were a nation of wusses" when they cancelled the Eagles game on 12/26 due to the noreaster? He said the Chinese would have marched to the game doing calculus while they marched.

I think there is a school of thought that our attitudes that everything will be fine and we are entitled to a good life, however we get there, is the main problem. We want medicare and social security but do not want to pay for it.

We want a good life, but don't make me the one to sacrifice. And it scares me that the opportunities that were pretty plentiful when I was growing up was an abberation. They didn't exist for the average child in 1900 and will continue to diminish in availability as we go forward.

I posted a response to Jacks'mom, who graduated Harvard medical school and commented on the lack of ability, aside from rote memorization of her Asian counterparts in medicine. My response was, yeah, like Sanjay Gupta. Here is a classic example of immigrant Asian parents pushing their child into science, technology -- like fields where they got jobs -- got his 2 degrees in 7 years. Was he the only brilliant neurosurgeon? But his work ethic gave him opportunities, and he had the ambition to pursue them. And he seems like a pretty happy guy.

One example, but I only have the famous to choose from. LangLang has told horrid stories about his father pushing him but he did perform with his father at Carnegie Hall, he loves his career and is now happy that his father did push. He spoke how difficult the teenage years are for prodigies, I know 2 who quit in their teenage years, one was a protogee of Bernstein and performed with the Pops very young. Langlang talks about how his father pushed him through those difficult times and he has probably one of the most brilliant classical music careers ever.

I think that the children of immigrant parents generally push themselves more, get the grades, push for success their parents expect in education and now seem to take most of the spots in professional and post grad schools. In my most humble opinion, the children of successful parents generally are pretty lazy, have low expectations from their parents about working hard so that their habits become hardly working. In DH's circle of Harvard and Yale grads, very few have their kids accepted to those schools, except one family -- Jewish, but more on the "Chinese" model than the western.

I spoke to a mother yesterday about the article, she had read it. She is Harvard undergrad, Columbia law. Her daughter is in an accelerated gifted program. She said she is mixed about the view. Her daughter does violin and ballet, and the rest of the time is homework. She also thinks there are growing limited options and she thinks the "Chinese" model has better outcomes for the child.

Except for the anecdotal, are these children are happy or not happy when they grow up?. In general, how do you actually measure who is happier? I do know that when DD and I get over the fights at the piano when she plays a new piece, and she gets it (just like the story in the article) she goes to the piano and plays it on her own. She loves to get dressed up and perform at the recital or concert. Her self esteem grows significantly when she accomplishes something that she first fought me on and then worked through and achieved. Way more than the things she could more easily do and found "fun".

I also think, another one of my most humble opinions, that a child that challenges themselve, learns the behavior. Learns the reward of the challenge. DD challenged herself very young because she wanted something, like climbing up to a slide -- and the steps were more than half her height but now she is too logical and too spoiled to push herself. Though it seems that as she has learned the challenge of learning more complicated pieces, or practicing the back bend everyday for gymnastics, she is fighting me less and push herself more. Maybe I will get to that self motivated kid. If it happens, I will post.

Ren

Different culture! It makes me think of the little Chinese boy in my son's gifted class who is a "B/C" student. The article says this doesn't happen to Chinese kids. hmmmmm.

The article also says kids don't want to work...I have to disagree with that one...my son is a natural workaholic.

kcab, I personally don't condone the kind of treatment that Amy Chua describes in her article:

"I used every weapon and tactic I could think of. We worked right through dinner into the night, and I wouldn't let Lulu get up, not for water, not even to go to the bathroom. The house became a war zone, and I lost my voice yelling, but still there seemed to be only negative progress, and even I began to have doubts."

This.is.not.okay.

I'm not going to go all wishy-washy and chalk it up to "cultural differences" or "parenting styles." It's not okay to treat another human being this way. It's abusive.

Here's a well-considered response to Amy Chua. I think it's worth reading.

http://contrapuntalplatypus.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/a-3rd-way/

I read it and it was a good response. She described well where she agreed and disagreed.

Unfortunately, the latter part described a teacher we wish we had for our children in all subjects but doesn't come around very often.

We first had a piano teacher for DD, when 4, that pushed her with pieces and her technique was terrible. And when we switched and she had to spend 3 months changing her technique -- she was horrible to deal with during piano because she wanted to play those flashy pieces, fast. Then last summer we spent the summer learning to read music, in turn she had only scales and simple pieces to practice -- my choice and that was torture -- for both of us. But now, coming out the other side she is reading music on her own initiative, when she has to figure out where she is in a new piece.

Though I can totally relate about her not playing the flashy pieces for a while. I caught myself thinking that I want her to play fast and complicated (to show her off?). Luckily I caught myself, but showing off your kid is an easy trap/addiction. And when we are at gymnastics and she cannot do something the top kids in the class can do (and I sit with those mothers) I feel myself having a wee bit of discomfort -- I catch myself and allow it, since I have so many moments where she does excel and had proud moments after a ballet recital where other parents and just observers approach me about her. But those moments at gymnastics where she is clearly not the best, it is hard on some level internally.

I can relate to parents wanting them to be the best, to achieve. I don't want to abuse my kid and certainly let her get water or go to the bathroom, even in mid piano practice. I have a clock, I know how long we are at it. But I do set goals for her and give her incentives -- fancy dresses are in vogue now for rewards. Because they are extracurricular goals. She doesn't get dresses for getting her homework done, but for working at a piece for a piano concert, yes.

Ren

It sounds like you have successfully avoided one of the major minefields for music parents. Often that desire to show children off, or simply to see tangible progress, causes parents and teachers to push children to play flashier pieces than their technique can support. Your DD will be far better off having put in the time to correct her technique and work on music reading. And when you think about it, the idea of comparing musicians by the what piece they are playing is absurd. The question is--how well/beautifully/musically can they play it?

Ha! Nice little read -- especially the first few comments in response:

3 Comments � Sun Jan 09 2011 22:58:03 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

I have a problem with the idea that "Nothing is fun until you're good at it." Whatever happened to enjoying a challenge? My son doesn't like math because it is easy for him - he likes it because we have taught him to embrace challenges in life rather than run from them. As a result, he's almost three full grades ahead in math. Meanwhile, he HAS been in school plays, does NOT know how to play an instrument (he has asked about playing the guitar - not the violin or piano - and I'll probably let him do that soon if he is still interested), plays baseball, and most of all, HAS FUN. That's what a little boy is supposed to do. Having grown up in a household that was not quite as strict as the one she described, but had some striking similarities, I firmly believe that the most important thing is for children to know they are loved even if they screw up. Yes, they should be pushed to do their best. But they should never be made to feel like a show dog who only receives love as long as they are bringing home the trophies.
There is some merit to this - kids don't need as much free play time as some parents seem to think they do. (It's been my experience that BOTH of my children are better behaved when they have organized activities on a regular basis). But it is important that they have SOME free time.

I guess the reason this article made such an impression is because it is the total and complete opposite of my approach thus far. When I found out that my daughter was PG, I did a lot of reading and what I discovered was that many of these children progress through grades rapidly, and go off to college early. I wanted my kid to have a normal childhood � this became my new goal. Since my preschooler was already reading at a 5th grade level � my husband and I became determined to keep her away from math. I know � perhaps it seems crazy� but I thought that I did not want her to be completely bored at school and it was too late for reading and language arts � I thought that if I kept all math related materials out of the house she might have some chance of learning something new at school. I started to actively keep her away from books and her beloved workbooks. It was around this time that I spoke to another parent of a PG kid who kindly tried not to laugh at me. She told me that the problem is that these kids seem to know things almost as soon as you show them � she may not know what borrowing and carrying is all about just now � but give her 15 minutes and she will. This other parent was quite wise, and her advice turned out to be quite true. Still, I don�t want my 7 year old doing calculus. How in the world would that be of any benefit to her? (unless, of course, she just could not live without the joy of calculus).
It would probably not even occur to me to tell her that any piece of artwork was less than beautiful. If she colors even a hair outside of the lines (and she is tired) there will be a trip to tantrum city. I try to get her to not be so tough on herself. So this whole push your child � berate them into doing well notion really is, in every way, the complete opposite of what I have been doing. Of course, we have not tried piano lessons yet.

I've decided to agree with the comments that this parenting style has a time and a place. In china where there's 3 people doing every one person's job so that the government can keep all those people gainfully employed maybe this makes an average child rise above the competition to get a better life. Maybe if you're family is first and second generation immigrants and you're trying to make sure your offspring can survive in a place you're not from. Maybe it's fine for a rich family who can afford to get her daughters everything to have some performance expectations in return. I'm not that worried about someone unwittingly using this on a disabled child, how cruel but unlikely or rare. I see lower middle class or higher poverty mothers from the James Dobson camp using this fantasy story to fuel their passion for "raising a child in the way they should go". Yep, I'm getting flashbacks. The point of the excercise is that you have the resources and the commitment to see that the child is rewarded with success on the other side of the exercise. Like one of the comments said no one wants the Jewish mother they want the Jewish father writing blank checks to pay for school.
So it won't work for my family because we're not any of the above extreme cases. I can't believe we see parents calling this abusive, a blogger said the little girl who played at carnage hall had Stockholm syndrome for cuddling with her mommy after piano practice. I think that's an emotional over-reaction. I saw the professor's supporters calling dissenters "wounded weaklings" who are almost neglectful in their hands off raising of their own children. Odd, most of the vocalest promoters of permissive parenting are stay-at-home moms, they have enough spare time on their hands to think up these things. I think it's fine that people publicly discuss these things. Maybe it will lead to tolerance and understanding. Doesn't mean you'll like what you learn about each other. You don't have to. If you can't gossip about each others faults then you don't love them enough to look closely and see their flaws. But good fences make good neighbors. That lady can't keep an ancient Chinese secret.

Ok personally I teach my boy academics because he's hyper and I have to keep him entertained and it's something we like doing. But I'm not pushy. I'm not patient. I quit easily. That will change in the second grade when he doesn't want to do his homework, right? But I think about it, if I nagged him to play the piano for all the time I spend telling him, get your toys out of the livingroom floor, quit touching stuff that's not yours, quit pestering people, your sister either. With that same effort he could have a talent to show for it. And there's no toys in the floor if the only toy's a piano.

I was touched by this article and have been thinking about my parenting skills since then. I want my children to be normal too...like trimom. I have a very unstructured parenting style. I had no structure at all until the 5th grade when I went to a strict private school. I can't imagine not giving my child bathroom or water breaks. But, I understand the drive to make your child learn the feeling of attaining a goal. I would imagine it becomes habit. I gave up learning entirely in the 6th grade because I was bored to death. My ds10 seems to get the seriousness of middle school and is applying himself much more now. Yet, all of mine seem to give up too easily because of gifted hypersensitivities, etc. Considering (unpatriotic as this might sound) that the Chinese are running circles around us, it makes sense that we push our children harder now. As a society, it seems we have "American privilege" thinking. We are falling behind as a result. All one has to do is look at our standings in science and math. U.S. News and World Report has a few rankings. So, more structure and discipline seems like a necessity in my home. Although, not to the degree exhibited in the WSJ article.

The boy's learning a lesson about homonyms on the computer (because I'm impatient and quit he just controls his own education with software). I'm getting a refresher. I'm ignoring him and telling him, "I don't know, it's you're game. How do I know how to play it.". All the while I'm googling synonym and homonym and subject predicate quietly in the background so I can be any use to him later. I think by now I'm learning more as a housewife about early childhood education than my sister who has a degree and runs a daycare.

FWIW piano lessons are less related to music talent and more related to abstract mathematical thinking. And Chinese mother's educational method is in line with Singapore math cirriculum's educational design. We here in the US spiral up the lessons. We learn in first grade, review, learn, review in second, review, learn, review in third... The Singapore math is exhaustive. You master it and move on. Like my boy is in there playing with grammer, he's not ready for synonyms and homonyms. Well, I guess he is. He's doing it. He just showed me where he changed a silver star level to a gold star (better score). I don't care if he masters any of those lessons. They'll come up again and again over time. I was raised on Abeka cirriculum. It spirals. Houghton mifflin spirals. I'm teaching him fractions and multiplication. Those are linear, definate, and rote memory. I'll trust the computer games with the grammar and let the spiral pick up the slack.
Singapore math is chinese mother, it's spoiled rich American.
Flexibility, people. Eat the meat and spit out the rest.
I've read the more better American private schools are picking up stuff like the Singapore math at the same time china's trying to be more like us. And we tend to use the Singapore books in a way they weren't intended by picking and choosing lessons. But they weren't made for American kid's anyway and the spiral will pick up the slack.

As the parent of a PG kid who entered college early I totally understand where you are coming from. Here's another idea to consider though: it is possible to be go to college early AND to have a normal childhood. In fact being with intellectual peers may feel far more "normal" than being with same age peers and totally mismatched with the educational environment.

Many PG kids don't go to college early but how well that works depends a lot on the individual child's personality and the educational options available. I would just encourage you to keep an open mind and realize that you really have little control over how your child will progress academically. Short of locking her in some kind of sensory deprivation closet, she may well progress much more rapidly than you want or expect. Don't push it, but don't fear it either. Being advanced academically is not a sentence to an unhappy life.



Yeah, it doesn't really work that way. Sorry. We were very loose and unstructured with academics and the child was through years of math with very little exposure in hours.

Also while you may not enjoy math, I would consider that for some math is beautiful. I can't imagine if your child showed a talent or deep passion for art that you'd advocate keeping her blindfolded so she doesn't see how pretty the world is. This really amounts to sort of the same thing.

Someone's comment made me think: free time, has anyone quantified how much is necessary? As I say this, DD finished her scales and has 5 minutes with her Barbies before school. It is like those comments about working mothers, not the amount of time you spend with your kid, just the quality of it.

Anyway, just thought of that. She does get free time and we have spontaneous playdates with kids across the hall. But I do have an expectation of the practice she has to get done and the homework before free time.

Ren

Yes, I agree. Horrible to think some people might read this book and do like-wise. I think there is a big difference between having an extremely high standard and rigid discipline and verbally or otherwise abusing a child. Justifying it with 'results' is ridiculous.

Here's a link shared in a different forum to an NPR interview with Amy Chua:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=13578

I'm relieved to hear that the WSJ excerpt from her book was chosen & titled provocatively to attract attention... and sell her book. It clearly succeeded on the first, and I genuinely wish her success on the second.

BTW... My son read the WSJ article today... and came away deciding he wasn't so terribly abused.

Wow ! Five whole minutes?

Wren, and I mean this as gently as possible, but I think it has to be said --- you are reinforcing some stereotypes here.

For the group, here's the latest response from some adults (if the comments in so many other places weren't enough).



Val

I read all the comments. What a theraputic and thought provoking experience, and time consuming escape frOm running the vacuum. It showed some people had that upbringing and it works. Some people had that upbringing and are in therapy or dead. Some people didn't have strict up ringing and succeeded anyway (as is popular). Some people weren't raised that way and still are in therapy and wish they had been. I came out of the experience thinking, wow! I wonder if there's ever been another mother who has had this much access to this many people's stories in history ever? What a data rich an anecdotally comparable time we live in. How lucky and overwhelming are we to have all these expert opinions to consider. Truly.
I've mentioned I grew up religious. The hair pulling fits sounds famiar, but I think it was to teach me to be a good person, not over good grades. I wanted to mention, but didn't want to always pull up a controversial thread all the time. I was watching nat geo run their Amish special again when one of the girls doing their ram-a-dass whatcha call-it when their teenagers are sent out in the world to party and see their options before deciding weither or not they want to join the church. One of the girls decided not to. She decided she'll need professional therapy for the way she was raised. No t v, told how to dress. Super strict. Amish are known for their hard work if not their grades. So I was thinking, what are the Amish suicide rates? Because that seemed to be the big arguement in the Chinese authors comments, that strict parenting leads to uncreative unhappy adults as evidenced by japan's suicide rates. But it's unclear if japan's suicide rates are due to the economy and the fact that this style of parenting leads to unflexibility that can't handle crisis. Or if this style of parenting leads to greater family loyalty and responsibility and the men are commuting suicide because they don't leave their children and mothers for welfare to raise.

But, but, but... The story hurts because it's not about national parenting and the outcome of a citizenry. It's about how a couple kid's were raised. I emailed the story to my grandmother who said she was so glad I'm not raising her grandkids that way. Even though she's said before how proud she is that I'm doing a great job and teaching them right and teaching them how to learn and so far they love it. They love it!!! How American is that?! Lazy American mother.

Lazy? I spend at least as much time telling my kid to pick up his hotwheels off the floor as she tells her kid to play the piano. From what I read in the comments an immigrant mother won't let her child wash dishes, saying, "no darling, go study instead.". Ok they don't say "darling". They say "useless dog."

Eta:
The only thing I can figure is the difference between successful people raised this way and successful people raised that way is the belief that comes from a spiral cirriculum educational system. I want my kid to spend hours studying stuff because he wants to. I don't care what he's studying, it still builds skills. I don't care if he gets it right, or how much he gets right. As long as he spend 10,000 hours studying then all the concepts will come around again. It's ok. If it's fun. The more fun it is, the more likely he'll spend 10,000 hours doing it.

Signed,
An American Mom
(mostly)
Kind of, mixed with borderland Mexican lifestyles.

Does this count as studying? The boy has a bottle of water which he is spitting into the trash can. After the third one I said, are you spitting in my trash can? I'm an elephant, he says. I wish you would do that in the sink instead, I said. Would an unschooler call that imaginative play a study of elephants? Does that count twords the 10,000 hours of study I'm hoping to get out of him? I'm not going to count it. I'm going to call it listerene gargling practice and future hygiene skills. That counts twords the social skills and the EQ, then, not really about elephants anymore. Um, I guess it doesn't really matter because iM counting those 10,000 hours of study practice by the resulting good study skills when it's over, not by counting actual hours.

La Texican,
Before my husband and I had children, we decided that it wasn't in our control whether the kids were going to need therapy, only the kinds of stories they'd have to tell their therapists. Our choice was whether we got labeled as the draconian, overbearing pushy parents who doomed any chance they would have at happiness, or the overly permissive and disengaged parents who doomed any chance they would have at happiness, or the meddling and over-protective parents who never let them fail or make their own mistakes and doomed any chance they would have at happiness, or the aloof parents who didn't offer enough guidance on how to navigate problems and doomed any chance they would have at happiness...

We understood that no matter what we do, both we and our kids can find a way to make it seem like the worst of all possible choices, and us the worst of all possible parents. It was a tremendously freeing realization. We do the best we can, and we're sure to let them read stories of parents like Amy C. whenever we can

http://playborhood.com/site/article/why_american_parents_are_inferior/

Ha-ha-ha. That guy's funny.

After reading the articles and comments, my parenting style seems fairly middle of the road. I believe in encouraging, even pushing, my DDs to move slightly out of their comfort zone, but I am careful not to push it too far so that we end up in an entrenched battle. I find that most people and teachers underestimate her ability so much that I shoot higher so that she can stretch.

My DD is very stubborn and wants things her way and honestly, doesn't like to do things that are not very easy and effortless for her, pre-k has never challenged her in any way so I think it is actually be good for her to be challenged, but there are so many limits with me in that position and why I won't homeschool. First, there is a perfectionist in me that has very high standards and it takes much effort to keep it in check. Every once in awhile my critical perfectionist pops out and then I feel very guilty for tainting things with that critical aspect of myself. I would actually love to foist worksheets and learning activities on my DDs because I was a teacher and it is just plain fun for me, but they resist so strongly and are so far ahead any way, that I just don't push those sorts of things. Second, my DD is at a stage where she does not like to work and struggle to learn. So many things came so easily for her that she resists things that are not instantaneous. I think she should experience struggling and mastering material, but she fights that with me. Because of this, I wish there were an academic program that suited her and pushed her just enough. Again, I can try to do a little of this myself, but she resists me ten times more than she would someone else simply because I am her parent.

I likes it.

I used to say that if my kids turned six without breaking a bone in our backyard, I'd consider myself a failure as a father.

Much to my relief, I failed miserably at this goal, but not for the lack of trying. Although... each kid did have to go see the school nurse after getting a bean stuck up the nose. (Yeah, it's the small victories.)

Val,

I thought I was good to let her play 5 minutes before school, considering it takes 10 minutes and constant "put on your boots" just to get out the door.

Though in this age of technology, what is free time? Playing tennis on the Wii? Playing Barbies, doing a science experiment because they want to? Sledding, skating? I teach her when we are skating, so does that differ from her gymnastic class?

Maybe this should be a new topic, what counts for free time? Because skating isn't, I want to go skating and we go, we have to plan ahead, since we have to go on the subway to the rink and I have to bring skates and it has to be in a timeframe that works. Unlike when I was 5, I put on my skates when I felt like it and went across the street to a neighborhood rink (made by fathers in the hood).

When she goes into her room and plays Barbies, free time obviously. Is going to see the Nutcracker because she really wants to go, free time? -- she is doing what she really, really wants to do. There isn't any pressure to do anything but watch, -- similar to free time spent watching TV? But I have to plan way ahead, buy tickets.

Seems there is much more scheduled free time, with activities that I would do unscheduled as a child. Though I had less options.

Ren

I don't think (though I may be wrong...) that there's much controversy over what "free time" is. It's time when you have nothing scheduled and when you can decide, on the spur of that moment, what you are going to do, and change your mind every minute if you like. After you schedule something in it, it might still be "leisure time" but it's no longer "free time".

How much is necessary I'm not sure; that's more difficult. I don't think five minutes contributes, though, really - the importance of it is the experience of deciding what to do with it, and five minutes isn't long enough to have that really. You only get a chance to do one thing, and not much of that. Sorry.

I've just finished reading Amy Chua's book at a sitting. Very strange experience. It's funny and insightful - and yet horrifying; she knows, and yet doesn't know, what she sounds like. You should read it, Wren.

I'm with ColinsMum. If it's scheduled, it's not free time. Free time is a chunk of time when a person does whatever comes to mind. You can't be creative or imaginative unless you have a lot of this kind of time. Perhaps you don't put a priority on imagination; I do.

I don't think it's possible to define a precise percentage of a day or week as free time; it just has to happen. Perhaps it's a learned skill and, again, isn't a priority among Chua-method advocates. I think it's essential to healthy development. I'm not going to be fuzzy about cultural differences on this point. ALL kids need time to develop on their own, in their own way.

I think a lot of the issues we've been discussing on this thread boil down to a couple large parental assumptions. If people disagree, please, please say so.

Assumption #1: Children do not want to learn. People do not want to work. I must hover over my child constantly and force her to work, or she will never learn anything and will never be successful. I define "successful."

Assumption #2: Children generally want to learn, and most people want to accomplish something with their lives. My child seems to fit this description, more or less. I need to try to teach her the value of finishing things and working hard. I hope my child will be successful. It's up to her to define "successful."

It seems to me that a lot of Chua-style advocates don't consider the possibility that a person can do something useful or important without being forced to. How unfortunate.

I also think that this method can do a lot of damage to children, as the comments on the WSJ article show.

Val

Wren,I think they mean many parents see value for the children from being bored. Some brag about taking that to the extreme too. Most people pride themselves on being balanced. I have to think people would parent differently in different environments and in different situations. To each their own. Like you seem to live in the fast lane. Study's say there's better ways. But recent newspaper articles say spending time being bored leads to increased risk of heart attack. I'm not sure if they were being ironic. It was the WSJ, not Prevention magazine.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395904576025482554838642.html?mod=WSJ_Ahed_AutomatedTypes#articleTabs%3Darticle

Val, there also was mention of the assumption that Chuanese kids will be responsible for taking care of their parents in their old age rather than dump them in a nursing home and go on with their life. And commenters mentioned kid's will do that more out of love. I've read that other cultures feel more responsibility to live their lives for their whole families, not for themselves. Although this story would be an American fantasy of what would look like. Really I'll bet it looks more like families taking care of their own because there's no medicaid to pay for the nursing homes in poverty country's. I don't know. Reading about other countries paints such conflicting images. Guess I'll never know the whole truth about some things. So, add that to the assumptions. Not who will be successful but who will be responsible as well. That doesn't change the balance of who's right. It's just another thing.

He-hee. You can tell I read all the 4000 WSJ comments.

Oh yeah, what I've seen the chaunese described as, "parenting from a place of fear", which isn't very healthy.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/br...-kind-of-chinese-mother-is-amy-chua.aspx

"As one of my Korean-American friends wrote to me in an email: "The constant conflict between what feels like unconditional support (why else would a parent invest so much energy and focus so entirely on a child?) and entirely conditional love (if you don't perform, I won't really love you) can be soul-destroying." Let's not lose sight of these consequences just because we're blinded by Chua's shiny, beautiful, ridiculously successful and seemingly well-adjusted kids. One family case study does not a larger cultural point make."

I am not sure the free time definition fits all. "creative and imagination". Does that assume that when a child has free time, they cannot watch TV? They have to do something creative and imaginative?

We live at the beach during the summer. Dd is on the beach from lunch until dinner. On weekends, she is on the beach in the mornings. She can swim, dig a hole to China, look for crabs or jellyfish -- whatever the project she or group of children are doing. Is that free time? She cannot choose to go to the playground, though there are swings on the beach and she choose to go there.

If you are going to define time as the child can switch and do something else on the spur, what are the limitations of choices? Do they have to stay in the house? In their room? Can they watch TV, use their computer? Can they do anything? What if they want to bake with you? Baking is usually something I have to schedule since I have to buy a mix and frosting (hey I do the best I can.)

I think you criticize me unnecessarily without clarifying what you think free time is.

When she goes and plays Barbie, or games on her computer, definitely free time. But children do not have the freedom today like I had. I could run across the street and meet friends and build forts in the woods in my free time. My child is pretty much in sight all the time. She is restricted due to safety concerns of today.

Ren

Of course not. What Val wrote was
(I think, personally, that this statement may be too strong - or at least, that Val and I might have different ideas about what "a lot" means here - but at least it's clear that she made no claim that all free time had to be spent imaginatively.)
Of course.

I would have thought it was sufficiently obvious that there will be, for a variety of reasons, constraints on what a child can do in any given time period, that it would have been pointlessly pedantic to include it in the definition. But all right: it's free time if
(a) the child can choose, within constraints that are imposed by by circumstance rather than with the intention of guiding the child's choice, what to do, and
(b) the child is free to change the choice at any moment.

What I mean to exclude here is choices which are constrained because of what the parent wants the child to do: e.g. "would you like to play the piano or read a book?" isn't free time, and nor is "tell me what constructive thing you're going to do for the next hour and then do it". The child gets to ask and answer the question "what shall I do now?" and to re-ask it as often as s/he wishes.

Of course there are grey areas. An example that comes to my mind is the time my son has on the bus (if he doesn't have homework that needs to be done). I don't mind what he does (including just looking out of the window) and he does find a variety of things to do, but of course the constraints there are very stringent!

FWIW, my DS doesn't get much in the way of free time during the week, by the time he's had school and the clubs he chose and he's done his homework and two instrument practices, and I think that's OK. I do think it's good that he gets some, and I resist scheduling our weekends, in order that he gets extended periods of free time every weekend.

There are so many areas of grey I can't see for the clouds.

You have got to be kidding. Constraints vary in degree in each situation, again, you are not defining and that what my question was all about.

How many minutes of being creative and imaginative do you need for free time? Just like no one dares put down how much time a mother should spend with their child to make quantity not quality the issue -- too political.

Val, I dare you to write an exact amount of free time a child needs so they can be creative and imaginative. And then tell me what the correlational positive results form that amount of time. Just like 9 months of breastfeeding gives you all the benefits. They have found after 9 months, the additional positive benefits drop off like a rock off a cliff. Not that it isn't good to breastfeed longer but the differential benefits impact is neglible.

Give something tangible about free time and creative and imaginative since you criticized my quip about the 5 minutes of Barbie time before school.

Ren

I gave you a definition that's as good as anything you'll ever get in social science. What don't you like about it?

You're still missing Val's point. Read her post again. The people who think it's important to be bored would say that free time is still important even if NONE of it is spent being creative and imaginative. It's not - it can be argued - that free time is important because in that time you can do creative, imaginative things; it's that free time is important because, from the experience of making your own choices about spending your time, you learn that you can do things noone has thought of for you - creativity. Now, you may disagree with the argument, but please confirm that you now understand what it is?

"They" have found no such thing. Nobody has ever found a way to research the full benefits of child-led weaning; that is not the same as establishing that none exist, or even as establishing that they are small. It would be at least as difficult to research the effects (independent of all other aspects of parenting) of allowing particular amounts of free time, obviously.

Ahh, Wren. I think you're taking things far too literally. The whole point of being creative and imaginative is that the tangibles and constraints that you want to define don't apply.

The amount of time needed varies from person to person and it can't be precisely defined. But by "a lot" in my first post (to answer ColinsMum), I meant, frequently enough that it's a normal part of life, and long enough to let something develop.

This question isn't political. Creativity is, simply, freeform. I suspect that people who aren't creative can't understand that concept. It may seem as alien as red is to someone who's colorblind (or, should I say, red?). Unlike colorblindness, I expect it can be developed (at least a bit) if people slow down a bit and let it happen.

Creativity and imaginative thinking can't be scheduled, forced, or planned. They just happen. They are spontaneous.

And for them to happen, you need free time AND you can't be too stressed out or too busy. This, for me, at least, is the core of my argument against the hyper-parenting you and Amy Chua advocate. When nearly every moment has to be productive, there is no room for imagination, new ideas, and creativity. There's simply too much mental clutter to allow it.

I don't know you; perhaps you aren't a very creative person. That's okay; I'm not judging! BUT, it's important to realize that one or more of your kids might be creative. I see creativity as an extremely important ability that needs to be nurtured.

In the way of studies, there have been research studies regarding creativity, and from what I've read, they've found that it's an important trait. Google the terms and if you can't find anything, PM me.

Val

I am fascinated by Amy Chua's article, but haven't had time to post until now, so my apologies for the barge. Also, I am no expert, but I wonder if there are not multiple facets to creativity. And while I am not endorsing all the tactics in the article, a routine of intense practice may bring some important elements of creativity - in addition to mastery it brings a rhythm that can put you in "the zone" where creativity flows.

I am reading Keith Richard's autobiography - he describes the origin of the Rolling Stones. I found it interesting that he said they never set out to become the sensation they did. Their ambition in the early '60s was to become the ultimate cover band of American blues, enough to make ends meet. And they were obsessive students of the blues - it was a full time job to decipher and reproduce the blues music on the records they could get. It took me by surprise for some reason to hear that there was years of focused effort involved, with no greater ambition than to be a cover band. But it was that intense effort and resulting mastery that led to the band's creativity - adapting the blues to the context of their own experiences.

The difference is that Keith's mom was not there cracking the whip. In this case, his discipline came from his own passion for the music he was listening to, but I'd venture a guess that there are a few creative geniuses out there who got their start under the watch of a tiger mother....

From what I can tell Wren just has the one daughter who seems to be thriving in an over-privileged urban lifestyle. From what I can tell. I've been bluntly wrong before. But you do bring up a very good point and I forget where I read it but parents run into the most problems when they have a kid who's not like them. It's confusing and leads to mistakes and conflict of a different sort. I haven't read the book, only the Internet buzz. Quite theraputic seeing over 4000 people saying what I said as a child, the ends dont justify the means and cruelty is abusive. But it looks like Mrs. Chain's method seemed to work until the second daughter entered puberty. It worked on one daughter, differently on the other. Seems like strictness often backfires when applied to a stubborn child. And it's debatable if it's all that healthy for the mediocre unambitious child which is the one it seems to serve, especially in a competitive neighborhood. More thoughts on this later, believe it or not lol.. Gotta run.

Wren,

Forget about creativity. Don't you think everybody needs and deserves downtime? You know unstructured free time when one is pleased to do whatever he wants within given constrains. Sorry, couldn't skip the constrain part BTW I found ColinsMum's definition both quite accurate and funny.

I believe we all need time to do our own thing whatever that can be. I am a stronger believer in a free time. We homeschool and besides all the academic reasons, for us giving our children more free time is one of the top reasons to homeschool. I am trying to make sure they do have free time every day and feel quite a guilty if some of their days get way too busy. I go even so far, that if they have a busy weekend, I give them Monday off school. Yes, day without learning, so we can all (that includes me too) can relax and recharge. Sorry to say that, but 5 minutes of free time is laughable.

I don't really care what my children do with their free time. Let me see, today they had about 2 hours and they decided to spend 1 hour playing outside, 25 minutes watching TV, and the rest playing/wrestling with each other. Yeah, it was so not academical, but it was NOT waste of their time. They enjoyed their time together, they had fun. Yesterday DS6 spent his free time reading a book about pirates, dressing up like one, and designing a pirate flag. The day before he opted to play math games on the computer which led to him asking me to teach him more about decimal numbers. All of that was his/their choice.

I believe kids need to get bored here and there. Free time may lead to academic development or it may be a pure play, but honestly who cares? My children are years ahead as it is. I refuse to plan and structure every single hour of their lives. My kids need the freedom to explore and follow their interests or do the unimaginable nothing. You see, some of my older one's obsessions would have never happened, hadn't he had his free time. For example I would never make him spend hours upon hours learning about geography as he did on his own. To this day geography is one of his favorite subjects.

I don't let my children do whatever they want all the time, but I do give them what I hope is enough time to do as they please. We homeschool, so they are told what to do quite often. I ask them to practice the piano and yes, we have had our own share of fights over it.

I know this isn't really part of this thread, but I wanted to point it anyway. Interestingly enough this week the piano teacher mentioned that DS8 had overcome some of the major hurdles and can now really enjoy piano (his 3rd year). You would have to see the change in him. The kid who wanted to quit a year ago now asks to practice these days! Something I didn't expect to happen. Ever. It reminded me of the article and how mastery brings more joy. Perhaps there is some truth to it. He liked piano the first six months, then he was ok with it. The 2nd year with a new and more strict teacher was mostly no good. He was asked to work harder and his mistakes were pointed out, something he had hard time dealing with. I didn't let him quit, but I did offer to find a different teacher. He decided to stay with the same teacher and now he is enjoying playing again. Am I glad he stayed with piano? Yes. Do I believe he is happy he got this far? I believe so, at least for now.

OK, I'll quantify it. They need enough time to get bored. And TV doesn't count, because it is so addictive. You could lose eight hours in channel surfing.

I just ordered this book from amazon. ��Your Child's Strengths: Discover Them, Develop Them, Use Them. It was recommended somewhere in the middle of all that poundsign quiestionmark star exclaimationpoint I was reading about Amy Chau's sensational book. (had to say that, it's in a cheesy new country song on the radio. Was waiting for a good chance to use it.)

What I liked about this book I ordered is it says it shows you which motivations apply to your kid in what circumstances and supposedly this lady says she can tell you which motivation to use on your kid according to what your kid needs at that moment. It promotes teaching to their strengths rather than exclusively working on their weaknesses. It's worth a read. I'll try it. We'll see if I learn something new.

"Instead of focusing on weaknesses, Fox submits that children do far better when the focus is on their strengths. Childhood is for "creative dreaming," not preparation for standardized tests. Fox identifies three types of strengths: activity, learning and relationship strengths, and helps parents guide their children toward self-discovery, explaining that true strengths include not only what a child is good at, but what she enjoys and makes her feel strong. "

I think it means some things they learn for pleasure, some for learning sake, and some learning is for other people's sake. Like I said, I don't think I've heard this yet. We'll see.

PS Amy chan: saying pushy parenting is better than neglect does not make it superior. Now if you could produce results superrior to well taken care of children with involved parents you'd have come up with something.
Darn it? That's the best I could do. Yai, yai, yai. That's not evEn a quiestion. And it's already a week past Thursday. The challenge is over. I'm going to dig this thread up next year when I come up with the right Jeopardy answer here. Watch.

http://www.flylady.net/pages/column16.asp/

This timely advice arrived in my mailbox today. Are you a beloved queen or a despised dictator? Don't make excuses that "because only cruelty works". It's a lie. Honestly, I lost my patience too much lately with a three year old in the house. Next time I'll tell him to get his toys out of my living room for the one-hundreth time a day in a whisper with a smile on my face. I hope.

If I gave DD as much free time to get bored, she never eat dinner, get her homework done, brush her teeth, get outside for air and exercise. For a creative kid, there is no boredom with free time.....

But thank you, I asked and I got an intangible.

LaTexican, I really like your posts and thanks for the link.

I do not think you need cruelty, but strict rules are necessary. I expect DD to behave with manners, put her clothes in the hamper when she takes them off and try and tidy her room, etc. She has 3 friends over for a playdate (at the current moment) and it will be a cyclone hit in her room after they leave. It usually takes more than one reminder (request). Sometimes the requests get strident. Since it seems there is a constant request when we come in that snow boots live in the closet and hats and mitts go in their drawer.

DD would definitely put off homework if we did not make her get it done first. And we want her to learn that if she gets her tasks done first, she will usually end up with more free time. And if she does it well, instead of sloppy, it takes less time. Does that mean I am not building to her strengths?

I know the tangent isn't exactly what LaTexican was referring to but I think rules of behavior and expectation are getting slack. When I was growing up, people went to college, then you got a job and paid for an apt and food. You did not go home. It was kind of loser thing to do. Those were the expectations and everyone I know did that.
Eighteen year olds are in the army and getting killed for this country and yet people in their 20s are moping about their prospects. Kids are not taught responsibility for themselves these days. If we send an eighteen year old off to war, then kids should be basically taught that after college they can feed and shelter themselves. Part of survival. Does that make me a dictator?

Ren

On a light note, one of my friends sent me this link to a cute cartoon about the article.
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/01/13/battle-hymn-of-the-tiger-mother-a-cartoonist-responds/

I enjoy reading the commentary on this. While there were certainly many sections of the original article that made me wince, I do think there are many truths to the stereotypical Westerner. For example, I do know a lot of "Western parents" who ignore the benefits of focused goal-setting and expect schools to provide any type of academic challenge for their children.
I also liked the follow-up article this weekend by the "Western" parent. While she, too, was tongue-in-cheek, I thought she sounded more balanced in her approach than many I personally know.

It's hard. I don't want my kids to rot their brains on tv and computer games all day so I do encourage a lot of creative time with Legos, imaginary play, writing, etc. Surprisingly, though, I've discovered that there are also benefits to letting them watch a little bit of tv. For my DS6, if he didn't get to enjoy Star Wars Clone Wars cartoons, he wouldn't fit in with any of the boys his age around here who act it out whenever they're together. If I had to choose, I'd much rather they be happy, healthy children with friends than a famous pianist who is socially isolated from peers.

You might be surprised, actually. We don't have TV (not a "religious" decision, DH and I have just never really seen the point; we rather assumed that when we had a child we'd need to get one for the kind of reason you mention, but so far DS7 doesn't show any sign of wanting one either). Yet DS somehow knows enough to join in with the playground games! Maybe it's just that the other kids enjoy telling him what he needs to know, but it doesn't seem to hold him back. I asked him explicitly once whether he ever felt left out through not having TV, and he said not. This may change later, of course, but it's our experience so far.

I like the cartoon!

My parents were divorced when I was young. One was a strict, tough, fair, and highly intelligent man who ran a farm after a hugely successful career in the military. The other was a lazy, extremely intelligent, hardworking (when she needed to be) autodidact. I spent time with both. I also spent a lot of self-directed time in sports ( which I paid for), scouts, and other pursuits.

The freedom under my mother allowed me to develop self-direction and to pursue my interests that have allowed me to find my spot in my adult life. My dad gave me the toughness and and discipline to buckle down and get unpleasant things done. Sports and other group activities gave me the willingness to do the blocking so someone else can make the touchdowns.

IMHO, based on this and my observations of other people, kids need strictness in order to develop discipline and need to learn how to do the dirty work, then they need increasing levels of autonomy to become individuals.

Amy Chua lives in a highly insulated world and thinks her brand of parenting is unique. It is not.

There are many subcultures in the USA where parents drive kids and whole families drive kids to excel. Most of these areas revolve around athletics. For instance, the Black community in the US dominates little league basketball. Most weekends in a lot of families revolve around tournaments. That is all these kids do. Another subculture is rodeo. In fact, there are hundreds of subcultures where parents push and push their kids.

For Chua, she thinks her subculture, Classical Music, is the only one in the world. LOL.

Ironically, I think her blindness to much of it is due to her very strict upbringing and lack of contact with the rest of the world.

Her serious book on diversity is very interesting and I agree with much of it. But she used the Soviet Union as an example of a high diversity society, which is embarrassing to most serious scholars of Communism and of the Soviet Union.

The inclusion of the USSR and her ignorance of US subcultures highlights a serious flaw in her ability to look for and synthesize information. And it may go back to how she was raised - she never had the free time to go and LOOK for stuff - just walk the stacks and pull books down at random - or just go to conferences on things she does not know anything about - developing her curiosity about the world and methods to sate it.

And this is the flaw in the rigorous upbringing approach. The child becomes very good a limited set of skills and can work well within a circumscribed area of knowledge, but the world does not work that way. Sooner or later they have to adjust.

It's possible that she (and other parents who share her views) dismiss these other subcultures as irrelevant. When violin, piano, engineering, sciences, and a few other technical fields are the only things that matter, why bother with anything else? I'd be interested in knowing if the rodeo crowd or the sports crowds ban their kids from sleepovers and other acitivities the way Chua does.

As an example, the stage mother culture of pushing your kids like crazy into acting is well known. But someone who won't let her kid be in the school play might dismiss them. Dunno.


Val

I see a mother at gymnastics who might fit the mode. Good points Austin.

Ren

I think lives are like Mathematical Definitions. Add or remove postulates and see where it leads...

At the end of the day, it is parents deciding what they want their kids to do. And families doing stuff.

The Rodeo or Racing crowd would just laugh at Chua and Carnegie Hall. Did you know there is such a thing as Dog Pulls where dogs do tug of war?

Paul Johnson wrote an essay on Tolstoy's famous intro to Anna Karenina, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.". Johnson disagreed saying happy families come in many forms whereas unhappy ones all have common antecedents.

But I think both men are right about happy families.

This is an interesting book. Ollestad dissects his relationship with his dad and peripherally, with his mother, and then their marriage. They had a very hippie life in many ways.

Ultimately his dad set very high standards for him and pushed him to meet those standards. His dad also had high standards for others in his life and pushed them to meet those. The young Ollestad fought within those demands, facing his fears and his relationships with lesser people. Then losing his dad and fighting to save his life in a horrible accident. Those extremely high demands gave him the skills to survive that accident.

Ollestad also goes into how he sought to instill those high standards in his son.

Ollestad's dad and Ollestad himself are far harder on their progeny than Chua is on hers and the penalty for failure is death, a much worse fate than being called garbage.

http://www.normanollestad.com/

At the end of the day, who is a much more dangerous opponent on any field when each has to start from ground zero in terms of skills and knowledge development?

Ollestads are far more dangerous and far more effective.

I like Chua, but she is very ignorant of what really goes on in American families.

Here is another example. Bill Buckley and Ted Kennedy would take their kids out sailing in full gales with the kids working the decks.

I thought that was very interesting. It was similar in thought to a lecture I heard from some children's behavior professor from Harvard, though she broke down parents in 3 categories. She worked more with middle school kids and problem behaviors.

Ren

A little more decidedly tongue-in-cheek than Chua, and not aimed at selling a book (not that there's anything wrong with that!):
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/14/american-mothers-superior/

It was a good article. But she does acknowledge that her college wouldn't accept her now, great SAT scores or not. It is a different world from the 70s. And she hope her 12 year old will find a similar school. The problem, like she writes, those foreign students have a 4.0 GPA and great scores. Between India and China there are 6X as many of them. Take 2X off for India since 800 million are in poverty, but still, they do not have enough universities yet to accomodate and they are looking for spots. I want my kid to have a spot.

On Morning Joe today, they were talking about Amy Chua -- of course. All these successful people talk about how strict their parents were growing up and they were successful and perhaps Americans have gone too soft and maybe a call to move towards the center and more "Chinese style" parenting.

I do not want a college for my kid that will take her, I want a college for my kid that she wants.

Ren

Kcab I love that thought. It's so universal, such a practical measurement.

I've been thinking about all of this for several days, and it has seemed to me that nestled within this discussion is the notion of scarcity; that is, that certain approaches to helping our children learn and grow are driven by the idea that various resources are scarce (elite preschool spaces, selective university admissions, particular kinds of job opportunities, and so on), and that these specific resources are those which are necessary for our children ultimately to have a satisfying adult existence.

Obviously, one needs for certain basic resources (food, warmth, shelter, love) not to be scarce, but I wonder if it would be interesting/useful/thought-provoking to reframe some of these other questions in terms of abundance rather than scarcity? Certainly it would seem to me to be potentially both very freeing as well as conducive to creativity to view life as offering an abundance of possibility; what could our school/work/hobbies/parenting look like if we embraced a vision of bountiful opportunity? What could our kids' lives look like?

And I want my child to be happy, self-confident, assured, relaxed and well equipped to cope with what life throws at her more than I want her in college.

You might enjoy this take on the Chinese mothers article:

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-steinberg/post_1605_b_811329.html][/url] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-steinberg/post_1605_b_811329.html

Hi,
I'm from a country with a Chinese majority. Yes, the moms here do push the kids very hard. I do not do that. DH and I have been resisting the pressure to do the same. It is not easy. The education system here is so competitive. It is not about doing anymore, it is about outdoing others. The fear of losing out to others, not getting into the best schools, makes many parents send their kids for tuition after school doing more math, science and languages.

For us, we believe in training our kids to have the right attitudes and good moral values the first 12 years of their lives. In the course of guiding them in their school work, we teach them work ethics, time management, task perseverance. we believe if these foundation are set right, all other things will fall nicely in place.

It has not been easy trying not to follow the Jonses. I do get jitters sometimes seeing my kids' friends going for all the expensive enrichment classes that are suppose to soup up their grades. I always remind my kids that they have to help themselves by learning to learn, pay attention in class and take every piece of homework very seriously.

Glad to say we think we have done the right thing and am very proud of our courage to have faith in our kids. Both, 14 and 11 are now very independent learners.

Thanks Sujuan, for your perspective. I agree that it is very hard to have the personal intergrity to go against the crowd, but I wanted to note

- on the other hand -

that there is an advantage to your children in having an 'overall atmousphere' of valuing academic hard work that families in the U.S. don't usually get. I think that your children have the best of both worlds.

Good Character, to whatever extent we parents can actually provide this, is, I think, the best gift we can give our children. Keep choosing what's right while you Jitter!

Love and More Love,
Grinity