Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Parenting arms race article

Nailed it.

Here, it's not even about ATTENDING one of those institutions (though parents here will happily mortgage themselves to do it, of course)... it's about something more akin to conspicuous consumption, translated into parenting. It's very odd. This is why I maintain that this is VERY much abusive IMO, and it is also very much about the parents' ego, and not about the kids' best interests in anything but the most superficial of ways.

It's not that there is anything wrong with Russian math afterschooling (or anything else); and particularly not for children with innate high ability.

It's that parents feel that they need to TELL others that they're doing it... and to imply that all of the "good" parents care enough to do this kind of thing to-- er, for their children... (right... that's what I meant-- FOR them).

This leads to a parental (and student) feeding frenzy about the "right" activities, in sufficient quantity, in order to produce the right "recipe" or something. DD sees a lot of this type of kid in her volunteering and leadership activities-- they are DEFINITELY doing it because they feel pressured to, not because there is anything like intrinsic motivation driving them to do so.

Parents eventually figure out that there is no "magic" here-- and that the only real "trick" is more-more-more-more-more... which they then tell their kids.

Alongside that (at least around here) we have teachers and high school guidance counselors that are complicit in this carnival ride, convincing students that an ELITE college is the only kind that is actually of any significance... and WOW, your paltry one sport, and single volunteering gig is HARDLY going to get you in THERE, now, is it? Maybe you should have taken up fencing, flint-knapping and the sackbutt or something a few years back... the sackbutt. Now there is a scholarship instrument if ever there were one...



Yes, I'm being deliberately ridiculous, but that is because it HAS gotten that ridiculous. I know many parents who chose their elementary-aged kids' band instruments (or orchestral ones) on the basis of FUTURE SCHOLARSHIP potential. They seem like otherwise normal, middle-class parents. And wow, aren't a lot of them going to be shocked when colleges don't care about a bumper crop of oboists.

On the day the Russian School of Math had its open house, it felt like we saw half of the parents in town that we knew. They weren't there because we had recommended RSM (we enrolled after that) but because like people think alike.

The Internet levels the information playing field. My parents strongly supported my education, but I don't think they knew the names of the major math and science competitions, math camps, etc. Now more such opportunities exist, and information about them is a Google away. Once you know about them you may feel guilty for not pursuing them.

The ideas that's missing from this discussion is the assumption by tiger-parent types that their method is most likely to result in a "successful" child. My understanding from what I've read is that this is the primary point of driving children. I find this assumption to be simplistic. First, what is success, and second, why do tiger parents think they have a right to define it for someone else? Your child isn't your property, and when he grows up, the right to define a) what to do with his life and b) personal success is his alone.

TBH, I suspect that a lot of tiger parenting is about controlling the kid being disguised with the idea that "this is best for you" or "we're trying to teach you how to be successful." Whatever that means.

College-educated parents in general have become more "tigery":

http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~vramey/research/Rugrat.pdf
The Rug Rat Race
by
Garey Ramey
University of California, San Diego
and
Valerie A. Ramey
University of California, San Diego
National Bureau of Economic Research
First draft: December 2007
This draft: April 2010

Abstract
After three decades of decline, the amount of time spent by parents on childcare in the U.S.
began to rise dramatically in the mid-1990s. Moreover, the rise in childcare time was
particularly pronounced among college-educated parents. While less-educated mothers
increased their childcare time by over four hours a week, college-educated mothers increased
their childcare time by over nine hours per week. Fathers showed the same patterns, but with
smaller magnitudes. Why would highly educated parents increase the amount of time they
allocate to childcare at the same time that their own market returns have skyrocketed? After
finding no empirical support for standard explanations, such as selection or income effects, we
offer a new explanation. We argue that increased competition for college admissions may be an
important source of these trends. We provide empirical support for our explanation with a
comparison of trends between the U.S. and Canada, across ethnic groups in the U.S., and across
states in the U.S.

Perhaps, but that article doesn't address my questions. It just continues the assumptions that I've been questioning.

Well, if college is now high school, you *have* to get into college or you will effectively be high school dropout.

The Tiger Parents seem to be more oriented toward PRINCETON!

We could be looking at two different assumption sets in two different cohorts.

I think much of that is a grey area Val.
DD is not a bad eater when it comes to fruits and veggies. I give her blended fruit every morning and make her drink it. It is a fight every day. But I will not let her go through life eating croissants with cream cheese, which is her choice. She can actually have that if she finishes her fruit and eats a bowl of yogurt. I force her to have her nutrition and then she can have crap.
Her chosen exercise is dance and she takes dance 3 times a week in a serious program. I expect her to integrate dance into her life as a life long habit of regular exercise.
She is rarely sick, she is strong and active and I think this is my role as a parent, though I push her hard to get her nutrition.
Just like I push her in some other ways. She was in Russian music school and although she has serious talent and did a concert at Merkin Hall at 7, it was too much. I let it slide, but not drop. She hated piano, but I paid for lessons once a week, didn't push the practice but kept a thread going. After almost 2 years, and now with a Jazz teacher who is easing her along, she sits at the piano, composes, seriously composes, says she is really liking piano again.
If I had let her quit totally, sold the piano, she would more than likely never found her way back. As her parent, I knew she had a serious talent and felt a responsibility to try and nuture it back into something she loved. I admit the Tiger Mom was misguided by the Russian school that told me that she was this prodigy and classical training was the way to go so she could play Tchaikovsky at 7 well enough that people would pay for the tickets. She did love the performance part of sitting behind this massive grand piano in the concert hall but the practice was way too intense for her at that age.
It was my decision to think keeping the piano alive until she could enjoy it again. It is my decision to make her consume fruit everyday to keep herself healthy. And I taught her to step off a 150 ft bridge. That was one of the better choices I made I think. Although I had a heart attack on the way down, before the rope swung out, and she was scared out of her mind too but was so happy after that she did it. You can train your kid like a seal but they also have to be able to go out there and take risk to succeed. And I think that is the bigger problem. Opportunities do not knock on your door very often.

The answer to the second question is the same as the answer to the question of why some think a chihuahua should be carried around in a handbag. It's an accessory that belongs to the owner. Children are often viewed in the same way.

Since fencing was brought up (in jest) as something good for resume padding - should I tell my daugther not to mention the reason she picked up fencing was so she would have another assassin skill? (My first reaction was to ask - "What do you mean, another...?") She would also like to learn archery - again, not for resume padding, but because arrows are quieter than bullets.

--S.F.

Personally, I've never concerned myself with other people's totems, taboos or fetishes. I am somewhat tigerish with my DD but I try to stress that when she has done what she has to her time is her own entirely.

I want her to get that vital unstructured playtime but I also want her to understand that work comes before fun. In my mind it boils down to three main themes a) DD is highly intelligent so because regular school is too easy I want her to learn how to learn so I feel that I have to after school her at a level that she can do relatively easily if she focuses b) her neuro-plasticity is high at this age (9) so why shouldn't she be in her ZPD? c) a child's mind is like a climbing plant - give it something to climb onto and it will grow up into the heavens but provide nothing and it will merely spread itself all over the ground.

Of course, I would like her to go to a top school but not for the bragging rights as a parent but for her have a chance to swim with other swans.