Article about parenting in West and East

[Lily]

Dears,

I found this article about a typical Western and Eastern (in the article it is Chinese) approach to parenting, and thought it would be interesting for you to read:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?mod=WSJ_hps_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

[Blues Fairy]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?mod=WSJ_hps_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

Yeah, I've seen this one already.  Poor kids; hope they at least manifest some early talent, to justify all the coercion.

[Boethius]

Yes, BF, I agree.

In my experience in the business world, it is your imagination, passion and self drive, not how much you've been "pushed" that makes you succeed.  Also, you need to have people skills.  The nerds who can do calculus in their heads but can't relate to people aren't usually the ones who succeed beyond measure.

[Admin]

I struggle with this one. The article describes Western parents as "respecting" and "encouraging" - and while true in some instances, I see far too many Western parents who are simply neglectful. That is not to say they neglect the basic needs of their kids (food, shelter, clothing and such) - but they are far from engaged. The article uses "Chinese" parents to describe a type of parent who is most definitely engaged, and to BF's point, almost coercive in forcing their children in a particular direction(s).

My experience with my sons has taught me that there are definitely times when I need to be 'riding their case' (coercive, I suppose), and there are times when I need to back off and relax and give them the 'space' to be their own persons.

If I were to describe it along a continuum, my leaning is more toward the side of the parent who is engaged and directing their children - though, as mentioned above, there are times when the entire continuum probably needs to be utilized - even in those instances where the child is generally motivated and inspired in a direction consistent with the parent's desires.

My eldest son is a gifted athlete - yet there are times when his enthusiasm waned and it was left to me to push him. Some might argue I was not acting in his interests to push him, and was acting out of my need to see him succeed. I pondered that question a few times in the past and quickly concluded each time that because I knew him so well, and because he had made it abundantly clear how much he enjoyed the sport and found great joy in both playing it and reaching various goals, it was my obligation to insure he was supported - and that included helping him maintain his plans even when the natural ebb and flow of his enthusiasm was on the wane.

None of my other kids have the same athletic interest as my eldest - though each have their own interests. At my daughter's ago (now 7) and for the past couple of years, we have exposed her to lots of different activities - partly to see which of them most interest her and which she would naturally gravitate toward. She has a gift of languages, and we are pursuing that with both ongoing (and now formal) Russian language training, but also other languages. She loves to dance (don't ALL young girls?), and she *may* want to be very serious about it. Part of the role of the parent (IMO) is to be able to discern from their child's reaction to different activities, which of those the child really values (emphasis on the child), and then to help them take that interest as far as they (the child, again) really wants to.

Anyway - just my view. FWIW

Thanks Lil for posting that article.

- Dan

[Boethius]

Riding their case is about teaching them character.  But for all that Chinese discipline, where are the Chinese Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, or top scientists making breakthroughs that change the world?  

I think it is important to expose children to different things, challenge them, and let them find their interests.  However, it is just as important for kids to make mistakes, to learn the consequences of actions, and to go out in the world and deal with peers, learn what makes people tick, and how to gauge their reactions.  I don't want my children to grow into adulthood having never left the greenhouse or worse, have an entitlement attitude that makes them too obnoxious to survive effectively in the real world.

When my sister was in medical school, admittance was based on marks and an MCAT score.  A decade later, that changed, and each student must now submit to an interview with the Faculty of Medicine.  My sister told me that too many interns were graduating medical school with zero people skills, and no ability to work with healthcare professionals in a fast paced, stressful environment.  The interview is intended, at least partly, to weed out misfits.  

Placing all emphasis on academic and acceptable cultural pursuits, to the exclusion of developing human relationships is, I think, a mistake.  I think we can even see that in some of the arrogance of the Yale prof who wrote that article.

[Blues Fairy]

I think we can even see that in some of the arrogance of the Yale prof who wrote that article.

It's also the arrogance that drives a parent dissatisfied with her own achievement or place in life to force her kids to satisfy her ambition, without any regard to the kids' own desires or feelings.  Kids are an instrument to promote a parent's self-esteem, ideas, career, i.e. the ultimate parental narcissism.

It's also the arrogance of one ethnic group claiming superiority based on the custom practiced among a small educated minority. Asian kids from urban gangs, underage sweatshop workers or the rural poor do not play piano and violin for 2-3 hours a day.  Moreover, within one or two generations such parenting habits will dissolve in the majority culture, and something tells me the more one is coerced as a kid, the less he or she will be inclined to coerce their own kids.

[Shostakovich]

A great topic to discuss.  Where did I see it, that China has more high IQ kids than the US has children.  Obama's state of the Union was interesting as the keynote seemed to be that unless the US comes up in math and sciences, that it is the late, great, United States that it will be.  As a resident of Seattle, a city of tech culture, and in the sciences myself, it is interesting to note how Mr. Gates staff & the staff of other high tech ventures have grown yellow; or brown when those from India are included. Most of the players in my field, for example; machine vision, are all Chinese. All these companies complain that US citizens do not measure up to the job requirements that they have. The sciences require mastery over increasingly difficult subject matter.  It is fine to say that a child raised to be his own person may grow to be become a balanced person who contributes in creative ways that sets the tone for new developments.  Indeed, if there is a bias towards the leadership in tech companies it is still towards those of European extraction whose childhood was, perhaps, not so brutally regimented.  It is also true that techies are notoriously bad communicators and not very well rounded as individuals.  All this will influence their long term prospects.  But to get your foot in the door, you need to measure up and therein lies the rub.  The lions's share of those who can participate in the economy of future need skills.  They may not all be the thought-leaders but at least they will be able to buy a house and send their kids to a University.  Tough nut for the parents who must choose to lash the whip or hope for a miracle that little Jane/Johnny shows some talent. 

Asia & Co. now have the edge, there is a culture of tech within the community that helps them. 

My own view is that the best thing a parent can do is to help a child to see how to light their own fire.  Why does one get Math and another does not?  Pounding formulas and math camp may help but you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.  There is a subtle element here that enables a person to see.  Finding that is where education becomes an art - part of that is letting it go; sow's ear.  Poor earth, poor herbs.

[SANDRO43]

China has more high IQ kids than the US has children. 

Not only that: "60% of Beijing students who had begun studying music between the ages of four and five passed a test for absolute pitch, whereas only 14% of the American students did." (SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=speaking-tonal-languages).

They'll sing us all to ruin .

[Shostakovich]

They'll sing us all to ruin .

While writing Perl scripts using Ubunto.  Apparently, the connection between ability with math and music is now well documented.  I was at St. Olaf college not so many years back, a small liberal arts college in Minnesota, known for its excellent chorus and musical education.  While there I recall reading a series of studies correlating math ability with musical perception and acumen.  The reverse, alas, did not show. 

[Misha]

Asia & Co. now have the edge, there is a culture of tech within the community that helps them. 

That is what they used to say about Japan in the 1980s. The main difference when it comes to education is that in China, Japan, etc..., students study really, really hard to write their state exams to get into the right universities that would guarantee them the best jobs. In the case of Japan, once they were in it was relatively easy to coast. It might not be the same in China, but still, there are reasons why the best and the brightest in China and India strive to go to North America or Europe for their graduate studies.

[Misha]

... 

[Aloe]

That is what they used to say about Japan in the 1980s. The main difference when it comes to education is that in China, Japan, etc..., students study really, really hard to write their state exams to get into the right universities that would guarantee them the best jobs. In the case of Japan, once they were in it was relatively easy to coast. It might not be the same in China, but still, there are reasons why the best and the brightest in China and India strive to go to North America or Europe for their graduate studies.

Where is that article somebody here posted? An interview with an ivy league professor (from harvard if memory serves me right), who said that in his university everyone (in undergraduate) gets 1 grade higher than they deserve, i.e. someone deserving in reality a B or B+ , gets an A and A+, and that it is that way in all ivy league schools. Because the schools are busy keeping up their images. So it's the same in the US, apparently. The hard part is getting in

[Misha]

So it's the same in the US, apparently. The hard part is getting in

That is true. Harvard is notorious for its grade inflation. You have to try really hard not to get an A