Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Parenting arms race article

I think the important thing to remember is regardless of how much talent, hard work or giftedness children come to the table with they are most likely going to live pretty average lives. My husband and I both have fulfilling careers that we enjoy and allow us enough free time to enjoy other pursuits and pay us enough to enjoy our lives. If my daughter ends up like that I will be completely happy for her. About 98% of the people who graduate from ivy league schools pretty much end up about the same. My spouse in an MIT grad (not ivy but still elite), he would have made the same career choice if he graduated from his state school. I think all the pressure is to make children "exceptional" when in all honesty even with various gifts everyone will be pretty much average:). As an aside, the average IQ of a Ph.D. level university professor is 124, so 120's would be high enough (and is the norm) for the highest level of education in most developed nations.

This 98% thing may be the tragic outcome that Tiger Parents want to avoid.

I am not sure I understand this point. As much as we say we want the kids to take the lead, everyday we see even from this board how to improve our DD or DS in reading or math or something else. Any responsible parents would want to guide their children. This guidance is based on their understanding and life experience. Sure some of them may be misguided. But there is nothing wrong on principle. I have met very few people who simply use their kids as bragging rights.

Tiger cubs can also be highly gifted. As I said earlier, the most famous ones, Amy Chua' daughters seem very very smart to me.

We're not really talking about Amy Chua or her daughters here.

Could you be seeing achievement and assuming it means that the girls are HG+? Remember, a large part of this discussion centers on the idea that tiger parenting and tiger schooling gives the appearance of being HG+ when the child is not.

I don't know anything about her kids, which includes an LOG. I don't assume a high LOG without evidence.

Also, a big complaint that parents here make is that schools use the equation gifted = achievement, which most or all of us know isn't necessarily true.

Since you brought up Amy Chua, here is how she defines letting her kids take the lead:


That doesn't sound much like what you're describing. The child is not leading, and the parent is not guiding, so we're definitely talking about different parenting styles here.


Yes, they can. That still doesn't negate the fact that tiger parenting yields negative results.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanad...dont-raise-superior-kids-says-new-study/

Maybe she didn't like our play.

If so, then the play thing in that item list could be partially my fault.

Then your child and mine have something in common. Fencing studio was sadly too far away, and Ninja-school-guy never returned her calls, so she was stuck with marksmanship, but has been also pressing hard on Parkour.

Like Wren, we've kept certain things alive on the basis of "I can see how this is a good life-long thing for you, and you can decide to do it or not... later... but for now, we think it's a good idea to spend SOME of your time on it."

But there's a certain flexibility there-- we do NOT continue forcing things year after year if our child behaves like a submissive, frightened dog during that activity... and some of her peers very definitely seem to have that demeanor.

We also set pretty firm limits on the amount of time, and number of things we feel she can successfully juggle. Adding theater this year? No. Not without giving something else up, which she wasn't willing to do. She did do an end run around me on adding another AP class, when the one that she and I had agreed upon turned out to not be available.

Well, clearly.

Because a life of 98% living isn't really living at all, I suppose.

Heh.

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment-- and I think that the author of the orignal article in the thread-starter would, too.

There is no way around the fact that the only thing which is going to elevate MOST of the members of the 99% into the 1% is luck combined with some extraordinary innate... something. It inherently lacks a certain predictability, however.


Hard work, above-average ability, and even determination will only take you so far-- they are essential of course, but not sufficient.

From what I have observed, I mean.