Are Chinese Mothers Superior?

[Vorticity]

"Mothers superior"?

Jumped the gun.

 

[drkitten]

But let's for the sake of the discussion say that asians are immune to the law of diminishing returns. If they just eat and sleep right, they can pretty much do anything. But even if they studied for 60- or 80-hrs a week they still wouldn't rise to the top. Why?

Because if you want to be The Expert, you should devote all your efforts to that. But The Expert is always overrated, often replacable and always suspectible to changes in technology.

But if you want to rise to the top, just being good at one subject won't cut it. You need to know how organizations work, maybe some history of technology and definitley done some networking at the extracurricular activities and the student pubs.

I'd like to know what high schools you know of that have pubs.

For that matter, I'd like to know what high schools you know of where networking will help you in your career.

Bear in mind that most people will not rise to the top anyway; it takes luck as well as skill, and by definition, most people aren't that lucky. But "the top" also isn't a position you typically arrive at in one leap. You do need skills, and you need whatever skills it takes to position yourself to the next level.

The next level after primary school is typically secondary school, unless you plan to be a child actor. The next level after secondary school is typically college, and after college is increasingly likely to be graduate school.

The way to get into college is not by networking with your fellow students and not by being in yearbook club and marching band. I don't especially like that situation, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize that fifty additional points on the SAT is worth considerably more than joining the forensics club at most university admissions departments. And no one gets into an M.D. program on the basis of how well they dance.

So a person who's expert at landing gears and nothing else is hireable. But a person that has a good general knowledge of airplanes, has a private pilot license and partaked in some extracurricular activities belonges definitley in management.

... but unless they know about landing gears, they might not be hireable in the first place. There's a whole bunch of management skills that they would need that you didn't describe there.

 

[Roboramma]

The way to get into college is not by networking with your fellow students and not by being in yearbook club and marching band. I don't especially like that situation, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize that fifty additional points on the SAT is worth considerably more than joining the forensics club at most university admissions departments. And no one gets into an M.D. program on the basis of how well they dance.

That's certainly true, but social skills are also certainly valuable in the real world. They are valuable skills to have when networking does become an important contributor to success, they are likely important in management and sales type jobs, and in the business world in general. And there's an argument to be made that social skills are easier to acquire in youth than in adulthood: that denying children a chance to engage in social situations and learn those skills early may mean that those skills will never be able to fully develop, just like they'll never be able to master a second language as well in adulthood if they aren't given the opportunity to learn it in youth.

Of course, I say "there's an argument to be made" because, well, I don't actually have data to back up that guess.

 

[drkitten]

That's certainly true, but social skills are also certainly valuable in the real world.

Oh, absolutely, and that's one of the things that's so horrifying about Chua's parenting style.

She's mistaking good grades (and violin playing) for personal and social development.

I knew a child prodigy growing up. He was one of these hyperaccelerated geniuses who graduated from college at the age of 15 or something; I was among his closest friends because, frankly, he didn't have many friends.

Of course, I say "there's an argument to be made" because, well, I don't actually have data to back up that guess.

I think Julian Stanley at Hopkins has a lot of data on that.

 

[gumboot]

So Yo-Yo Ma is just another hack? Not everyone composes and how is that the sole measure of musical "genius" anyhow? I admire people who have ideas and compose and share their music with the world but some (many?) of them are/were not great performers and need others to interpret and bring to life their vision. Often times, a great performer will show the composer whole new facets of their work they did not see before. I fail to see how composition is the ultimate qualifier of musical genius. This sort of simplifying of musical thought is reductivist and insulting.

The stereotype child musical prodigy does nothing more than play some piece of classical music on a piano. They haven't arranged anything. They're contributing nothing to the work. They're a mimic.

I have no problem with admiring their technical proficiency, but comparing them to genuine artists who have created work of their own (be that a composer or a gifted arranger) is ridiculous. It's like comparing a Xerox to Shakespeare.

 

[gumboot]

Thing is, this niece loves her aunt. And on top of that, she seems to agree that that is the way for a kid to be raised. She's not damaged, timid, or anything... in fact, what's striking is just how incredibly normal and average she is. Fine, she's not some prodigy or insanely successful person either, but that's my point: The perceived extremes are that such overly dictatorial parenting is either damaging, or the recipe for creating incredible success, but this gal is as middle of the bell curve as you can get (minus minor eccentricities, such as actually obeying a 9pm curfew... as a 20 year old! (that's back when I knew her; she's now out of college and presumably living on her own... Now that I'm thinking about her, I think I'll ask mom for an update)).

I think you and the writer in the OP might actually be jumping the gun here a bit with your measure of impact. Surely the true measure of how good a job a parent did was how well the child does in life as an adult.

What is more impressive? A seemingly gifted 14 year old, or a 90 year old who lived a long, happy and fulfilling life, achieved a great deal, and themself produced a family of likewise successful people?

In my experience children who are controlled too much by their parents tend to struggle once they're outside the control of their parents, because they never learned how to manage things for themselves. That's when the real damage of such an upbringing emerges.

 

[Pythonic]

Well, Ms. Chua is right -- parental involvement is one of the best predictors of success in school.

Speaking as a college professor, however,.... I'm willing to bet that Ms. Chua is going to be in for a serious shock when Sophia and Louisa crash and burn at whatever top-tier college they've been sent to. I have to deal with these overinvolved "helicopter parents" a lot, and it's rarely a pleasant experience for them, for their children, or for me. (Or for the Dean, because I have a tendency to tell them, "well, if you don't like it, talk to the Dean and see if he's willing to intervene.")

There's a blurry line between involvement and overinvolvement. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that Ms. Chua will not praise her children for bringing home a B. I'm less so with the idea that she won't "allow" her daughter to play the flute or the drums.

However, success in school has not been a good predictor of success in business. It's been pointed out many times how the captains of industry are predominantly C students. There is a huge disconnect between the skills needed to do well in school and to do well in business. And I'm sure you're aware of the work by Daniel Goleman.

 

[elipse]

There's actually a bunch of research on this, done on kids in western countries. The parenting styles are divided into four categories:

Authoritarian, which is exactly what the "Chinese mother" is

Permissive, which is basically hippie parenting where you want to be "friends" with your kids

Uninvolved, which is just what it sounds like, and frankly boarders on neglect

Authoritative, which is when parents set rules and guidelines but talk things over with their children, give them choices, negotiate when possible, make sure the REASON for the rules is clear, and allow the children to question the rules and will give answers.


Guess which parenting style overwhelmingly makes for happier and more socially competent kids? You got it, Authoritative. Authoritarian parents end up with kids who are obedient and have good grades, but don't have much initiative and aren't so happy, and kids with Permissive parents tend to have lots of self-control and authority figure problems, and, again, tend to be less happy. Kids with Uninvolved parents do the worst.

 

[Madouc]

My Chinese mum let me do a theatre studies degree.

Kinda wish now she was a tad more authoratative, but seems like "tiger mothers" were rare in my posse of Chinese/Eurasian friends. We are by and large a group of slackers just about treading water.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think you and the writer in the OP might actually be jumping the gun here a bit with your measure of impact. Surely the true measure of how good a job a parent did was how well the child does in life as an adult.

What is more impressive? A seemingly gifted 14 year old, or a 90 year old who lived a long, happy and fulfilling life, achieved a great deal, and themself produced a family of likewise successful people?

Well, yes, but which gives an idiot mom fishing for compliments her dose of attention and flattery?

I mean, the impression I'm left with from the article is that when she says that the only fun (allowed) is getting praise for doing something perfectly, she's not talking just about her daughters. She's pretty much telling us the kind of mentality that turned her into such a monster.

At some point she grew up, her mom wasn't around any more to praise her when she plays the piano, and the rest of the world kinda doesn't give a crap. The kind of skill needed to be praised for piano playing as an adult is a lot higher than for "omg, a 10 year old is playing that complicated piece." But she's been taught that getting praise is the only fun she's allowed.

Seems to me like the perfect recipe to create a monster that will make her daughter grind to earn mommy's daily shot of her addiction.

Exactly what good that piano will do to her daughter when she's 90 is probably as little concern as an alcohol addict has for what will happen to the grapevine plant. And as readily rationalized as unimportant. And just like to that addict, "if you wait 30 years you'll get a better wine" -- or in her case a better reason for praise -- isn't doing much when you're getting the jitters NOW.

In my experience children who are controlled too much by their parents tend to struggle once they're outside the control of their parents, because they never learned how to manage things for themselves. That's when the real damage of such an upbringing emerges.

QFT.

 

[Darat]

I'd like to know what high schools you know of that have pubs.

...snip...

Mind did!


OK not quite a pub but a licensed bar that was used whenever there was a social activity such as say when a play was being performed.



____________


They interviewed the author on the radio the other morning and she claims that the story regarding the piano piece is a family story that they all chuckle at, she said that's why she gave her daughter the best lines. (I'll come back to that in a moment.) She then went one to make comments about loving the child, building the child's confidence and that - the usual platitudes. Given that I could her the benefit of the doubt that the story is something that she embellished to make a better story for her book.

However thinking it through and if the basic details are correct then I think she steps over the line of being a controlling, ambitious and bad parent into being an abusive parent, it is this part that I base that opinion on:

"....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....."​

 

[drkitten]

The stereotype child musical prodigy does nothing more than play some piece of classical music on a piano. They haven't arranged anything. They're contributing nothing to the work. They're a mimic.

Horsefeathers. The performer contributes exactly as much to the composition as the actor does to the play. In both cases, the artistry consists of taking flat, inanimate marks on a page and making it come alive in such a way that the audience appreciates it -- and in the hands of a master, appreciates it at an emotional level, possibly seeing new aspects of the material that they had not seen before.

If you want to see just how good an actor/singer Zero Mostel is, for example, go watch any middle school performance of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum or Fiddler on the Roof. Then tell me that the performer is "contributing nothing to the work."

 

[drkitten]

However, success in school has not been a good predictor of success in business.

But Dr. Chua is demonstrably only interested in "success in school."

I don't think we're really disagreeing here.

 

[Pythonic]

But Dr. Chua is demonstrably only interested in "success in school."

I don't think we're really disagreeing here.

True. It is my assumption that the point of doing well in school is a means to success beyond school.

 

[drkitten]

True. It is my assumption that the point of doing well in school is a means to success beyond school.

Well, "success beyond school" does not necessarily mean "success in business." Indeed, when your metric for "success in business" means being the CEO of an innovative, paradigm-defining company like Microsoft or Apple, then almost no one is successful. Almost no one makes CEO.

And this is part of where Chinese culture might come into it. I think Anglos may be more likely to think of Bill Gates as the type-specimen of "success" than Chinese-Americans. Almost certainly Dr. Chua wouldn't want her daughters to drop out of Harvard to start a company in an unproven field; I suspect she'd much rather see her daughter placed as a doctor, a lawyer, a college professor or some "professional" position with a well-defined comfortable place in the middle of the hierarchy.

I think there's definitely a path to some definition of success that Dr. Chua has her children on. Her daughters are certainly more likely to get into an Ivy League college than any of the next generation of my extended family are. No matter how you slice it, that's an advantage in and of itself. Whether her daughters will be likely to capitalize on that advantage, or even to complete Harvard, is another matter. As I said, I can see them getting into Harvard. I'm not sure they'll have what it takes in terms of grades and recommendations to get into Harvard Law afterwards, however.

 

[themusicteacher]

Horsefeathers. The performer contributes exactly as much to the composition as the actor does to the play. In both cases, the artistry consists of taking flat, inanimate marks on a page and making it come alive in such a way that the audience appreciates it -- and in the hands of a master, appreciates it at an emotional level, possibly seeing new aspects of the material that they had not seen before.

If you want to see just how good an actor/singer Zero Mostel is, for example, go watch any middle school performance of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum or Fiddler on the Roof. Then tell me that the performer is "contributing nothing to the work."

Thank you so much, dr. I can't believe the mindset out there that says a performer has nothing to add to the conversation. Comparing a Xerox to Shakespeare isn't even an apt analogy. The only time that is true is when someone completely plagiarizes a work. Yo-Yo Ma, Alessi, Hahn, Marsalis, et al are not simply "mimics" (what are they mimicking anyhow?) when they perform a piece in their own voice, in their own way. Could you imagine trying to reinvent the wheel every single time you picked up your instrument or got on stage?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Oh, that'll be rationalized as something that'll help in the long run, is very much normal. But I doubt that many actually sat and thought what's going to be useful after school or why, seeing as almost invariably the most common denominator is stuff you can show to other parents right now than stuff which falls under "stuff that'll be useful skills in 20 years."

I mean, exactly what use will those piano lessons be in 20 years? Does she want her daughter to be an underpaid member in some orchestra? Somehow I doubt that's what she's aiming for.

I doubt that Mrs Chua herself has ever played the piano to entertain guests or relatives, after she got out of her mom's control. Or that she actually imagines that her daughter will get to entertain guests with a piano, some 20 years from now.

That _was_ the reason why teaching kids to play an instrument was all the rage in the 19'th and early 20'th century. You'd get around the piano at a party or social occasion and play and sing something. And also served to make the point that you can afford a piano.

But nowadays? Not so much. Seating someone to listen to your piano concert instead of just turning on the radio or TV or MP3 player if you need some music, is probably nowadays on par with making them sit through your vacation slides. Still happens, but isn't very much appreciated.

But snobs lost sight of what was the _end_ for that _means_. They just make their kid play the piano, because it kinda remains remembered as something that posh people used to do.

And, as I was saying, because that's something you can make your kid do at some school occasion and get praise from other moms. That seems to be the real common denominator when it comes to imposing such extra-curricular studies upon a child. Whether it's the piano or violin or ballet or memorizing a ton of poetry or whatever. It's something you can show others "look at what my kid can do", whether it'll be of any use after that or not.

But ok, let's say Mrs Chua actually intends that her daughter will become a performer. Wait, WHAT? How does the rest of the programme she's imposed on her daughter help there? That daughter isn't allowed to even be around any people outside of the strictly mandatory hours in school. Even taking part in a school play is something she mentions derisively like some bullcrap excuse of those western kids, that no Chinese mother would fall for.

When aiming for a job with a significant public/social component, that kind of growing up isolated from people is pretty much ensuring that you'll be the least fit person for the job.

So, really, it's neither this nor that. So exactly what will that unholy grinding the piano -- to the extent of not allowing her daughter to get water or go to the bathroom until she gets it right, or all the other emotional abuse that she describes there -- do for her daughter after school? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Father Dagon]

I'd like to know what high schools you know of that have pubs.

For that matter, I'd like to know what high schools you know of where networking will help you in your career.

Bear in mind that most people will not rise to the top anyway; it takes luck as well as skill, and by definition, most people aren't that lucky. But "the top" also isn't a position you typically arrive at in one leap. You do need skills, and you need whatever skills it takes to position yourself to the next level.

The next level after primary school is typically secondary school, unless you plan to be a child actor. The next level after secondary school is typically college, and after college is increasingly likely to be graduate school.

The way to get into college is not by networking with your fellow students and not by being in yearbook club and marching band. I don't especially like that situation, but I'm enough of a realist to recognize that fifty additional points on the SAT is worth considerably more than joining the forensics club at most university admissions departments. And no one gets into an M.D. program on the basis of how well they dance.

Sorry for being obscure. I was refering to university level eductation, such as polytechnics (from my own experience).

Of course you can have too much fun at the pubs (borderline alcoholism). But if the pub is more like a dignified gentlemen's club rather than hysterical copy of an "it" club, then it could be pretty rewarding. You see, there's no real difference between exercise and play. Soccer teams use to horse around with the balls before the "real" exercise begins etc. And you might say that Troll Physics is a waste of time, because it takes time from studies (but then everything takes time from anything).

Ergo: You could do worse things for your education than to kick back with some beer friday evening after one week of studies, discussing various things that you learned earlier in the week.

And disregarding extracurricular activities related to the school, there's plenty of other things you can do for R&R. Going to church, visit museums, workout, reading books, hang out with friends, etc, etc, etc. But in Chua's world, that seems to be no-concepts. So unless her daughters are immune to the law of diminishing returns, then they're only wasting their time. Of course 6 hrs of practice may be more rewarding than "only" 3 hrs. But if the quality deteriorates, then it's not economical.

... but unless they know about landing gears, they might not be hireable in the first place. There's a whole bunch of management skills that they would need that you didn't describe there.

True, true... However, if you're The Expert on landing gears and don't care a bit about what they're attatched to. As a matter of fact, you're so fixated on landing gears that you would gladly pool all the resources into landing gear R&D - at the expense of the rest of the aircraft - then you're definitley not management material.

 

[themusicteacher]

The stereotype child musical prodigy does nothing more than play some piece of classical music on a piano. They haven't arranged anything. They're contributing nothing to the work. They're a mimic.

I have no problem with admiring their technical proficiency, but comparing them to genuine artists who have created work of their own (be that a composer or a gifted arranger) is ridiculous. It's like comparing a Xerox to Shakespeare.

Your assertion is "ridiculous." Performance is part of the creative process and is, in essence, an arrangement (assuming the performer has not slavishly recreated a recording of a previous master) taking different tempi, accenting in varying places, adding touches of dynamic variation, shaping phrases differently. Are you suggesting that each piece of music is an entirely original work, completely devoid of any references to what has come before it? Genuine creativity is hard to come by and if we use your standard, there are extremely few true creators out there. I suggest you try to perform a masterwork and see how much of yourself you put in to it and then tell me if you were simply Xeroxing what Brahms (or even Lennon or McCartney) wrote.

 

[Pythonic]

Well, "success beyond school" does not necessarily mean "success in business." Indeed, when your metric for "success in business" means being the CEO of an innovative, paradigm-defining company like Microsoft or Apple, then almost no one is successful. Almost no one makes CEO.

And this is part of where Chinese culture might come into it. I think Anglos may be more likely to think of Bill Gates as the type-specimen of "success" than Chinese-Americans. Almost certainly Dr. Chua wouldn't want her daughters to drop out of Harvard to start a company in an unproven field; I suspect she'd much rather see her daughter placed as a doctor, a lawyer, a college professor or some "professional" position with a well-defined comfortable place in the middle of the hierarchy.

I think there's definitely a path to some definition of success that Dr. Chua has her children on. Her daughters are certainly more likely to get into an Ivy League college than any of the next generation of my extended family are. No matter how you slice it, that's an advantage in and of itself. Whether her daughters will be likely to capitalize on that advantage, or even to complete Harvard, is another matter. As I said, I can see them getting into Harvard. I'm not sure they'll have what it takes in terms of grades and recommendations to get into Harvard Law afterwards, however.

So, that brings up an interesting point: the sacrifice is not for a high level position (e.g. CEO) but for a place in the middle. Using my own career as a reference, that kind of sacrifice is completely unnecessary. The cost/benefit does not seemed justified; she is robbing them of their childhood essentially for little reward.