Whatever happened to Tiger Mom's children....(article)

[Ravin]

I disagree with a whole lot of things that "Tiger mom" does. However, the most important one is the premise that because her children have gotten into Ivy League schools, she succeeded and if they hadn't, they would have been failures. If my kids want to strive for Ivies, that's fine, but I know plenty of people who are happy, successful people without it. It's sort of like a family member of mine who's an engineer. He pushed his first two kids, and they are both engineers. The third one came along, and although dad pushed, it was apparent that this one wasn't meant to be an engineer. He had other strengths. i wish dad would have let go of the dream of three engineer children before pushing the last one so. I want my children to be happy, fulfilled, kind children who support themselves and don't live in my basement. There are many different paths to a "successful" life. I do push academics, and piano lessons, but not to an extreme.

This bears repeating. One of my kids, I'd even consider it a successful go at parenting them if they are happy, fulfilled, kind, and semi-self supporting living in my basement.

 

I would prefer that to miserable, dissatisfied, mean, or depressed but self-supporting.

[maize]

Not in my house. I believe care and meticulousness is a habit that is worth practicing and training into, so it's as important to me that the counter is wiped properly (that is, all the way to the back splash and edges, not just in swishes around the middle), as it is that the algebra is done properly (with straight lines and neat work). Slopping through things is not acceptable here.

 

You would have felt like a miserable failure if you were my mother :D

[creekland]

This bears repeating. One of my kids, I'd even consider it a successful go at parenting them if they are happy, fulfilled, kind, and semi-self supporting living in my basement.

 

I would prefer that to miserable, dissatisfied, mean, or depressed but self-supporting.

 

We've warned our kids that we're probably going to live in their basement.   :lol:

 

I'm guessing that has something to do with the fact that both hubby and I graduated from state schools and didn't do all we could have done to have made millions.  We slacked off and had terrific family adventures instead.  Hubby literally turned down an option to be a high level engineer world-wide when he had completed an African project (from home, not there) because it would have meant too much travel taking away from family time.  I'm sure the money would have been better, but money just isn't everything (to us).  He enjoys his standing in our local community and is doing perfectly fine here.

 

The interesting thing... both younger two have said they'd be fine with us living in their basement.   :coolgleamA:

 

Interesting point #2 is both have brought home dating partners to meet us knowing our house isn't pristine and their dates haven't left them over it.  Their dates admit to liking it here.  Friends they've brought home have openly stated they wished they lived here.

 

I'm not quite sure how that happens...

[Ravin]

I have to wonder how Tiger Mom feels about Lulu's choice of an art history major. Seems rather impractical by Asian parental standards.

If the plan is law school, you can major in just about anything as an undergrad.

[Ravin]

Oh I so disagree about this (bolded). The parent spends thousands of dollars on the kid's birthday and that entitles them to something from their kids? No.

 

A gift that comes with expectation of reciprocity is not a gift. It's a transaction.

This is a very readily disputable assertion about gifts. I would counter that all gifts come with an expectation of reciprocity, even if just intangible or indirect through "paying it forward." Even charity often comes with an expectation of an expression of gratitude.

[creekland]

This is a very readily disputable assertion about gifts. I would counter that all gifts come with an expectation of reciprocity, even if just intangible or indirect through "paying it forward." Even charity often comes with an expectation of an expression of gratitude.

 

There's still a huge difference in teaching a child (or adult) about gratitude and trying to shame them into it.

 

I've sent my dad birthday and Christmas cards and gifts for years and haven't even once gotten something back from him - not even once in the past 30 years.  (Sometimes he calls to thank me, but not always.  It depends upon his mood at that time.)

 

I have no intention of stopping.  What he chooses to do is up to him.  Ditto that for me.

 

We did teach try to teach our kids to think of others.  We'd never have made a scene at a public birthday party over it.

[MrsWeasley]

No, I haven't read the book. I've read excerpts and have followed the media. There is most definitely itely a message getting sent out in the media, which seems to be the right message, because it hasn't been refuted to my knowledge. There very well could be a different message in the book. She maybe was trying to be funny? Like Jean, I don't find it funny. I don't understand it being funny. Even if her message was supposed to be funny, I still think that her message was more than just "work hard to succeed". She had a very high & narrow bar and there was no other option. Her daughters weren't free to work hard at something's else, were they?

 

I wonder how many people think Mommy Dearest & the hanger scene is funny?

I think you should read the book. Like many parents, she comes to parenting with very strong feelings about how to raise children, and for her firstborn, it mostly works. For her second daughter, though, she relents and the book ends on a note of ambivalence and uncertainty about her initial goals, with no clear message at the end.

[shage]

Do you really think that?

 

I mean, I will grant that lack of ability to pay cash will affect my children's chances to get into the Ivy League, and I don't even know if I'd want to send them someplace where status is so important, especially not when we have such great opportunities here on the West Coast with UW and UCs. However, I do think that if my kids were outstanding at violin or piano and had great grades, they'd have a chance. I don't need to be somebody special for them to get in.

 

I'm not saying that a high achieving but not superstar kid has the same chance, but her kids did really well in school.

Harvard acceptance rate is 6%. A relatively large chunk of the admissions pool will have very high test scores and GPA's impossible to distinguish between with statistical significance. Same with extracurricular talents. The accomplishments of much of the applicant pool are impressive.

 

A superstar student is almost guaranteed admissions to a good school somewhere. But Harvard specifically? No. It's either a crap shoot or connections.

 

I say that not to disparage the girls' accomplishments. They are highly talented and hard workers in their own right. But so are many if the kids rejected from Harvard.

 

Hence the cynicism that it was parenting style that "worked."

[Crimson Wife]

I find it interesting that our society looks so much at the external measures of success (Ivy League, accomplished musicians, the fact that they are modest/polite) to determine whether the parenting approach "worked"--it just plays into that paradigm fully, which is that the measure of success is always judged by traits or factors that can be observed externally (and thus superficially).   When, in fact, the internal landscape can be decimated, even if someone appears successful and well-adjusted.  

 

So I am not particularly convinced by the article, by Chua's parenting methods, or by the girls' "success." 

 

Yes, this. I had a bunch of classmates at Stanford who looked like the epitome of success on the surface but who wound up with serious psychological issues like substance abuse, eating disorders, major depression, and even suicide attempts.

 

Not suggesting that the Chua-Rubenfeld girls are suffering from any serious psychological issues (I pray that they're not) but if they were, they certainly wouldn't be airing their dirty laundry in some magazine puff piece.

 

[Mergath]

Do you really think that?

 

I mean, I will grant that lack of ability to pay cash will affect my children's chances to get into the Ivy League, and I don't even know if I'd want to send them someplace where status is so important, especially not when we have such great opportunities here on the West Coast with UW and UCs. However, I do think that if my kids were outstanding at violin or piano and had great grades, they'd have a chance. I don't need to be somebody special for them to get in.

 

I'm not saying that a high achieving but not superstar kid has the same chance, but her kids did really well in school.

 

I do. When I graduated, a perfect GPA and a stellar list of achievements and extracurriculars were enough to give you a decent, albeit fairly small chance. Today, the odds of getting into an Ivy League school, especially Harvard or Yale, are astronomically tiny. In 2015 Harvard rejected 35,000 applicants. By the time my dd is ready to go to college, I can't even imagine how small their acceptance rate will be. So unless dd cures cancer or designs a car that can run on water sometime before she starts her college applications, I'm not going to hold my breath on the Ivies.

[SKL]

I have to read the book myself in order to have any credibility here, but I'm reading the comments and here's what I'm gleaning.

 

Here is a woman very set in her ways about parenting, having been brought up in a culture that strongly encourages this.

 

Kid #1's personality more or less suits her parenting.  I know some kids like that!  They give you the idea that you are a great parent / caregiver, when in reality you are just lucky that your first kid was easy.  This of course cements the parent's belief that her parenting style is "the" right one, the one everyone should adopt if they want to do right by their kids.

 

Along comes Kid #2 and there is a fairly long-term struggle between this ingrained parental belief system and the reality of each child's individuality.

 

This happens in many cultures and often, regardless of wealth or education, the parent fails to learn his/her lesson.  It actually takes a strong parent to be able to learn and apply the lesson.  In this case the struggle is described and the lesson is in fact learned.  It is called "Battle hymn" after all.

 

You know what this reminds me of?  Parents who are surprised with a child who is not heterosexual.  Many if not most parents have a hard time with this and wonder what they did "wrong."  Some think they can still "fix" it if they do the right things.  Some feel betrayed.  Many see their relationship with their child crumble and worse.  But some figure out how to adjust their world view to the kids they have, and the relationship comes out stronger.

 

Everyone goes into parenting with some combination of childhood indoctrination and childhood baggage.  Our own kids finish our parenting education for us.  I could see how this author would think a book about how an Asian Tiger Mom went through the learning process in the US could be interesting and even entertaining if well-written.

[Crimson Wife]

I have to read the book myself in order to have any credibility here, but I'm reading the comments and here's what I'm gleaning.

 

Here is a woman very set in her ways about parenting, having been brought up in a culture that strongly encourages this.

 

Kid #1's personality more or less suits her parenting.  I know some kids like that!  They give you the idea that you are a great parent / caregiver, when in reality you are just lucky that your first kid was easy.  This of course cements the parent's belief that her parenting style is "the" right one, the one everyone should adopt if they want to do right by their kids.

 

Along comes Kid #2 and there is a fairly long-term struggle between this ingrained parental belief system and the reality of each child's individuality.

 

This happens in many cultures and often, regardless of wealth or education, the parent fails to learn his/her lesson.  It actually takes a strong parent to be able to learn and apply the lesson.  In this case the struggle is described and the lesson is in fact learned.  It is called "Battle hymn" after all.

 

You know what this reminds me of?  Parents who are surprised with a child who is not heterosexual.  Many if not most parents have a hard time with this and wonder what they did "wrong."  Some think they can still "fix" it if they do the right things.  Some feel betrayed.  Many see their relationship with their child crumble and worse.  But some figure out how to adjust their world view to the kids they have, and the relationship comes out stronger.

 

Everyone goes into parenting with some combination of childhood indoctrination and childhood baggage.  Our own kids finish our parenting education for us.  I could see how this author would think a book about how an Asian Tiger Mom went through the learning process in the US could be interesting and even entertaining if well-written.

 

Except that she followed up her first book with one called The Triple Package where she singled out certain cultural groups for praise because they promote "Tiger Parenting". The cover even calls those cultural groups "superior" :thumbdown:

[FaithManor]

Harvard acceptance rate is 6%. A relatively large chunk of the admissions pool will have very high test scores and GPA's impossible to distinguish between with statistical significance. Same with extracurricular talents. The accomplishments of much of the applicant pool are impressive.

 

A superstar student is almost guaranteed admissions to a good school somewhere. But Harvard specifically? No. It's either a crap shoot or connections.

 

I say that not to disparage the girls' accomplishments. They are highly talented and hard workers in their own right. But so are many if the kids rejected from Harvard.

 

Hence the cynicism that it was parenting style that "worked."

Yup, admission's is a bit of roulette there.

 

Same as other uber selective schools. Even Cornell with a 14% acceptance rate is nothing more than pure luck for the most part like being in a region or zip code they want for campus diversity. They fill their freshman class from a plethora of equally qualified applicants.

 

Parenting style is not a factor.

[PeacefulChaos]

Honestly, no.  This is not something that is universal.  It surprises me that one would thing so.  The people who think this way are usually called perfectionists and it isn't exactly a healthy thing to be, although there would be many perks and successes involved.

 

Not thinking this way, though, doesn't mean you're choosing to skate by in life.  People make choices and have priorities and they aren't the same for everyone.  People are different and there are many ways to be successful.

 

:lol:  I am most definitely not a perfectionist!!  :D  

I guess I just see things differently.  I never said things have to be perfect or that anyone has to be 'better than' anyone else - just that they should be giving their best effort.

If my kid wants to play soccer, I'd encourage them to go out and play, not warm the bench.  

And I'm not defining success AT ALL.  I don't like the idea that success only = high salaries, prestige, blah blah blah.  That's very much against my philosophy in life.  I honestly think success is 100% doing what you enjoy and love.

 

How you equate these feelings of mine to perfectionism are lost on me.  Sorry.

 

If you saw my kitchen just now, you'd know that I most certainly do not always do the best that I can!

Oh yes, definitely.  I HATE TO CLEAN.  I HATE housekeeping with a passion!!  

So I do the best that I want to.  Because honestly, that has nothing to do with my life or me as a person.  I don't define my success by how clean my house is, and I would hope that if anyone did so, it would ONLY be because they absolutely love keeping their house clean.

 

 

I do agree with the sentiment that hard work is necessary. However, I think her definition of a successful life and my definition are vastly different. My cousin, although he's smart, never wanted to go to college. He wanted to continue to play with the power tools and machinery he'd played with since he was old enough to walk, and he has a successful tree trimming business. He's done a great job. My parents both went to college and had teaching jobs (local schools), and are now retired, happy, and with enough income to cover their needs and wants. That's success. It's the narrow definition of success that(and authors of other articles and things I've read recently) that define success in a very narrow way that may get you an Ivy League degree or whatever you covet, but that may rob you of things that are even more important, like TIME to play when you are 10 or to relax when you are 14, not practice the violin hours a day. Unless you are someone who is internally driven to practice, then no one has to make you. I'm sorry if this is written a bit poorly...I don't think I'm awake yet! But I hope you see what I mean.

 

THIS x100!!!!!!!!!  :iagree: :iagree:

 

 

I agree with this.

 

It seems as if some people are saying "work hard at everything you do" and not hearing others saying "work hard at the things that are important." 

 

I'm with the non-perfectionist people.  I don't make my kids work hard at every single thing they have to do.  They do work hard at the things that are important - their dad and I decide what's important, but some of that is based on our knowledge of our own kids, and not what Harvard says is important. That doesn't mean I let them skate by in life and the implication that people who don't try to force kids to work hard and be perfect at every dang thing they do are "letting them skate" is condescending and a bit offensive.

 

I let my kid quit piano lessons because he was hated it to the point of getting sick before lessons.  He dreaded it that much.  He resented every stinking minute piano practice took away from other (equally useful) pursuits.   Life became so much better the day I said "you can stop."  I am 100% certain that child is never going to say "why didn't you make me keep playing?"  I'm not so certain, but am pretty confident, that forcing him to continue much longer would have had a negative effect on our relationship and his relationship to learning. 

 

I absolutely agree with this.

IMO, kids need to put forth good effort on everything, and by that, I mean schoolwork.  And whatever sport or activity they choose, if they choose one.  

If I ask them to clean their room, I don't really care how they do it.  I just care that they can vacuum the floor without vacuuming up clothes. :D

My kids have never done music lessons, but I had one who did a season of baseball because he wanted to.  He was never told he had to stick with baseball or practice baseball outside of the delegated practice.  I just wanted him to try.  Because he wanted to try.  He got nervous the day of the first game, decided he didn't want to play, but we encouraged him to do so anyway because he wanted to and we knew it was nerves.  

We told him he never had to play again, but that when he signed up he made a commitment.  I wasn't going to let his nervousness override his commitment.  There was nothing serious going on in his case - if there had been, we would have definitely allowed him to stop.  

 

Apparently I'm in the minority here because I want my kids to actually try things that they said they wanted to try?  

Sigh.  I'm so confused.  I feel like my thoughts are exactly the same as everyone else's, but I'm getting singled out as being someone who is a perfectionist.  

 

It's disappointing. 

Hours are often needed to be good at what one does.  I spent hours riding and caring for my horses and ponies.  Anyone doing well at college spends hours in and out of their classes.  Anyone who is good at their job spends hours there and keeps up with what is going on.

 

But it's only "work" if you don't enjoy what you are doing.

 

I stole that from middle son.  When he was insisting he wanted to be a doctor, others were telling him all about the many years of schooling + residency and the long hours on the job afterward for many types.  His response to them?  "It's not work if you enjoy what you're doing."  He loves it all - college, research, shadowing, volunteering.  Neither hubby nor I have ever had to remind/require him to do something along those lines.  He does it because he loves it.

 

It's not work if you enjoy what you're doing.  Smart lad.

 

 

Add me to the disagreement list!  I have no desire to be the best housekeeper, so I choose to only do the basics with absolutely no regrets!

 

I agree with what a pp mentioned above.  What you are describing is a perfectionist.  That's rarely considered a good trait.  It's very easy for them to get down on themselves when they can't live up to their own standards.  No, most of the world doesn't share those standards.  Most of the world picks and chooses what's important to them and lets other things slide.  How we make our choices differs.

 

I choose to do the best I can at my job (which I enjoy, so is rarely work) and with my family (including the family budget so we can support our travel junkie habit).  But even within those, what I choose as "best" is different than what some others choose (like with housecleaning).

I definitely agree.  

I don't consider things I enjoy to be work, either.  But I think that pretty much anyone can agree, even if it was something they loved, they can look back and say, 'yes, I worked hard.'  It's not a negative thing.

 

I'm trying to understand how what I'm saying is any different than anyone else.  I feel like I need examples of things lol.  

Let's see.  I am a receptionist as a part time job.  I don't love my job (got it just to raise money to go to Thailand a couple years ago, and then paid for LASIK with it) but I do it well.  It's not hard.  It isn't hard work - I sit at a desk, answer a phone, direct people where to go.  I still feel like it is important for me to be pleasant.  I don't want to be rude or mean or look/act like I absolutely hate being there.  I sound pleasant on the phone and smile when people walk in.

I fail to understand how that makes me a perfectionist?  Because I feel like if I'm going to be there I should do it well?

Same thing with the kids, as I mentioned above.  They all like soccer, one more so than the others.  They choose to play whatever they want each season (if anything).  I wouldn't be pleased if my kids threw a fit on the field and refused to play (mind you, they aren't young, either - that sort of behavior in younger children isn't uncommon just because of their moods ;) - but at 12 and 10 I would not be pleased with it), which I have seen some kids that age do.  Granted, I've never had a child do that.  Astro is the soccer lover, but when he was 4 he was terrified to go on the field, so we didn't make him.  He didn't have to.  He was a little kid and he liked playing at practice but didn't like the pressure of games.  He still went back a year or so later and loved the audience at games.  But if, at 10, he suddenly shut down on the field for no reason - I would question it.  I would try to find out if something happened, someone said something, or if he just suddenly decided he didn't want to do it.  

And doing one's part, making a good effort, doesn't mean they have to be the most intense players imaginable.  But for me, that means not dropping the ball (figuratively, since it is soccer lol)... if they are covering defense in one area, I would expect them not to just stand in one spot and watch the ball roll by when they were easily within range to get to it in time.  That's an attitude problem, if something like that were to happen.  Do others really not agree?

Again, my kids choose their own activities.  It could be that the children I see yelling at their coaches and parents from on the field did not choose it but were forced into it by parents.  In which case, well... :lol:  Perhaps the parent should learn to not make their kid do something they don't want to when it isn't something important.  

When it comes to school work, I do believe they should give their best efforts.  What else do kids actually have to do besides school and play?  Isn't that optimal?  I'm not saying I expect perfect grades - I'm saying I want them to try to do the best of their abilities, in as much time as it takes.  Isn't that what homeschooling is all about?

I think the idea that everything has to be done with best effort is a little bizarre.  There are many things most people do where that doesn't even make sense.  Sure, I could get all crazy playing a game of badminton in the back yard, but that would really miss the point.  I'm not trying to be a badminton star, or smash my opponent to smithereens, I am trying to relax and get some sun and have fun. Spending hours practicing to become expert at it makes it into something else entirely.

No way on the badminton!  I've never played badminton, but fun games are for fun.  In that case, the best effort would be to just have fun.  

 

Idk.  Apparently my post last night came across weird because I feel like all the responses are accusing me of something I never said - or at least, never intended to say.  *shrug*  Perhaps my wording was weird, as it was pretty late.  I thought I was clear - in my head I was - but semantics.  Who knows.

[creekland]

I do. When I graduated, a perfect GPA and a stellar list of achievements and extracurriculars were enough to give you a decent, albeit fairly small chance. Today, the odds of getting into an Ivy League school, especially Harvard or Yale, are astronomically tiny. In 2015 Harvard rejected 35,000 applicants. By the time my dd is ready to go to college, I can't even imagine how small their acceptance rate will be. So unless dd cures cancer or designs a car that can run on water sometime before she starts her college applications, I'm not going to hold my breath on the Ivies.

 

FWIW, there are Hive kids who get accepted to Ivies (or their equivalents of Stanford/MIT) without having cured cancer or designing cars that run on water.  Odds are indeed low, but not impossible if that's one's goal.

 

None of mine cared to aim that high for undergrad even with stats to have done so (for middle son anyway, for oldest it would have been a low reach).  Middle son is aiming that high (tippy top high) for med school.  Honestly? We support him either way.  He won't let us down if he only makes it into State Med School (or even changes his mind that med school is the right path for him).  He knows this, but we still remind him - just in case.  

 

He might, indeed, make it.  He made it into his summer research assignment at Stanford and that had about a 5% acceptance rate.  The folks he worked with there are some who are writing his Letters of Recommendation for other things now.

 

Kids from average places can go on and do these things - even without Tiger parents.  He still hasn't cured cancer yet either.  He just has an inner drive (NOT parent driven) and is fortunate enough to be quite naturally talented in everything from academics to people skills.  There's nothing special we did raising him except for giving him the opportunities to do what he was "called" to do.  (Well... we got him into speech therapy when he was 4 and very behind, so that helped and is something we're credited with in helping him, but other than that...)

[SKL]

I don't push for perfection really.  I guess my philosophy is "don't say 'I can't' when you really mean 'I don't care enough.'"

 

There is a lot of mediocrity in my house.  I'm OK with that.  In this country (unlike some countries), you don't have to be "the best" to ensure a reasonable living as an adult.  Most of what we do is done for recreational and health purposes.  Yes, my kids are honor roll students, and sometimes they even pull a 4.0, but they could absolutely do better if I cracked the whip.

 

But if my advanced kid gets a B in math, she knows it's because she chose not to take her time and review her work.  She knows she "can" do it.  When people view life as a series of free choices, that is best for mental health, regardless of which choices they make.

 

The person benefiting most from this philosophy is probably my slower student.  At 9yo she prioritizes homework and study to meet her goals.  Not to a crazy degree, but to a healthy degree IMO.  Knowing that the choice to work harder => meeting goals will hopefully take her far as an adult.  She isn't going to have an easy ride, so she might as well be positive about working hard.

[mathnerd]

 

Everyone goes into parenting with some combination of childhood indoctrination and childhood baggage.  Our own kids finish our parenting education for us.  I could see how this author would think a book about how an Asian Tiger Mom went through the learning process in the US could be interesting and even entertaining if well-written.

 

 

The "Asian Tiger Mom" is actually American Born!! Her father is a famous and very highly accomplished inventor and an Electrical Engineering Professor at University of California at Berkeley!

Her book sensationalizes a lot of things for the audience. She is self deprecating and exaggerates a lot of incidents. If you are familiar with the genre of late night comedy talk shows, where a minority comedian rips off his own community/race based on the stereotypes that are associated with it and talks about it endlessly to roars of laughter and applause, this book is similar in my opinion. I took the book to be a humorous pandering to the "asian parenting style" stereotype. Warning: Many people don't get this kind of humor nor do they like it. Many find it offensive too.

 

Like many americans, she is not a first generation immigrant and she was not parented like that at all. She says in the book that the reason that she chose to push her daughters to perform at that level is because she is worried that in immigrant families, the kids lose the "immigrant mentality" and thirst for success around the 3rd generation typically.

Edited February 2, 2016 by mathnerd

[marbel]

<snip>

 

So I do the best that I want to.  Because honestly, that has nothing to do with my life or me as a person.  I don't define my success by how clean my house is, and I would hope that if anyone did so, it would ONLY be because they absolutely love keeping their house clean.

 

 

<snip>

Idk.  Apparently my post last night came across weird because I feel like all the responses are accusing me of something I never said - or at least, never intended to say.  *shrug*  Perhaps my wording was weird, as it was pretty late.  I thought I was clear - in my head I was - but semantics.  Who knows.

 

I think the reason for the disconnect is right there in the bolded:  you do the best that you want to.  I think (but I am not going to go comb previous posts to be sure) that's different from what you said before, or maybe I just read it differently.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said in this post.  Sure, if a kid (anyone really) makes a commitment, they should stick it out.  That's not perfectionism.  If a person wants to try something new, they should try it for a while and not quit the minute it gets a little difficult or challenging.  But I think that kids should be able to say "OK, I've tried this, I hate it/stink at it/become ill at the thought of doing it" and parents should respect that in a child --> meaning parents should know when to take it seriously and when to push or nudge the kid a little harder. 

 

I still think that expecting people to make their best effort at every single thing they do is not a good way to live and not a good way to parent.  I don't think that way of life is sustainable.    (Maybe we are defining "best effort" in different ways.  Tonight I am making fried rice for dinner.  It will be good, but it won't be the best possible fried rice I could make considering my cooking skills and availability of ingredients. Kind of a silly example, I know.  But, it's not worth it to me or my family to have me making my best effort at dinner every night.) 

 

 

[Sarah CB]

Just coming back as this has been on mind this morning.  I often eat lunch with other science teachers and some of us have grown kids.  In other circles of mine parents/kids are even older.  When we look back on parenting, our regrets and things we wish we could do over (especially with oldest children) are never wishing we'd been harder on them.  We all figured we mellowed out more with our younger children and wish we'd done the same with our oldest.

 

I think it's kind of like the cliche of being on one's death bed and never wishing to have spent more time at the office compared to with family.

 

Our families' best memories don't come from those moments we were naive and pushed our style of perfection on our kids (for us, there were times we were perfectionist about our garden and such things - all stupid things TBH - things I wish we could do over).  They come from the relaxed fun moments when we simply enjoyed each other whether cheering for their local league sports, music, or playing games.

 

My oldest, even though he's only 2 years older than middle, did not have as great of a childhood experience as my middle or younger.  Why?  We hadn't yet figured out that square peg/round hole thing and we expected way too much perfectionism (by our definition) from him.  It didn't ruin him.  He's a happy, healthy adult who graduated from college, is using his major, and thriving in his job.  It has, however, lessened his enthusiasm of staying closer to us (that and another issue in his life).  My younger two are rapidly reaching that same happy, healthy adult stage without the need for as much perfection.  Both remain far closer to us by their choice.

 

Of course... none are successful since they didn't make (or even try) for top Ivy schools... so take it for what it's worth.

 

Really?  No one wishes they hadn't mellowed out?  I feel like I was a way better parent to my oldest dd.  And, from the comments I get from her about the way I parent the boys, I think she agrees.

[creekland]

I don't consider things I enjoy to be work, either.  But I think that pretty much anyone can agree, even if it was something they loved, they can look back and say, 'yes, I worked hard.'  It's not a negative thing.

 

I'm trying to understand how what I'm saying is any different than anyone else. 

 

It may all be semantics and not being able to read tone, etc.

 

In general, what we're comparing are those who want to do something (piano/violin/riding/track, etc) and those who are made to do something because the parent wants them to.  Both put in hours and both will end up better because of the time they put in.  They differ in that the former enjoy it - it's not "hours and work" to them.  It's (usually) pleasure (anyone can have an off day).  The latter are doing it merely because they have to.  It's almost all work.  That part is a negative thing.

 

Those who are working at jobs they love enjoy it and are rarely stressed. They feel pleasure.  Those who are working at "jobs" rarely feel pleasure.  It's just something they have to do for the money, so they do it.

 

Then the rest (housecleaning, etc) came up because of the "must be good - or try their best" at everything.  Many of us don't buy that.  There are plenty of things one can let slide if they don't enjoy them.  No harm done at all.

[creekland]

Really?  No one wishes they hadn't mellowed out?  I feel like I was a way better parent to my oldest dd.  And, from the comments I get from her about the way I parent the boys, I think she agrees.

 

Absolutely no one in my circles.  Those include extended family, neighbors, co-workers at school, and friends from church for the most part.  When we talk about it, we're always laughing at how we used to be vs how we are now and feeling sorry for our oldest children and the mistakes we made that they had to deal with.

 

At school, it's pretty easy to tell who has had teens and who hasn't too.  Those who have BTDT with teens are almost always far more relaxed and understanding than those who have no kids or young kids.  (Any of the group can be good teachers - it's just the understanding of how the teen brain works that changes once one has more experience with them.)  The same might be true in lower grades.  I don't know.  I don't work there.

 

In the very limited data set I have, it's been the oldest child who has had significant problems when there have been problems in adulthood. (Three separate families with significant issues we keep up on. Far more without issues anywhere at this point.)  There's not enough data there to draw conclusions from, but my mind has been thinking about it since this thread came about.  It's an interesting coincidence.

[tm919]

Just coming back as this has been on mind this morning.  I often eat lunch with other science teachers and some of us have grown kids.  In other circles of mine parents/kids are even older.  When we look back on parenting, our regrets and things we wish we could do over (especially with oldest children) are never wishing we'd been harder on them.  We all figured we mellowed out more with our younger children and wish we'd done the same with our oldest.

 

I think it's kind of like the cliche of being on one's death bed and never wishing to have spent more time at the office compared to with family.

 

Our families' best memories don't come from those moments we were naive and pushed our style of perfection on our kids (for us, there were times we were perfectionist about our garden and such things - all stupid things TBH - things I wish we could do over).  They come from the relaxed fun moments when we simply enjoyed each other whether cheering for their local league sports, music, or playing games.

 

My oldest, even though he's only 2 years older than middle, did not have as great of a childhood experience as my middle or younger.  Why?  We hadn't yet figured out that square peg/round hole thing and we expected way too much perfectionism (by our definition) from him.  It didn't ruin him.  He's a happy, healthy adult who graduated from college, is using his major, and thriving in his job.  It has, however, lessened his enthusiasm of staying closer to us (that and another issue in his life).  My younger two are rapidly reaching that same happy, healthy adult stage without the need for as much perfection.  Both remain far closer to us by their choice.

 

Of course... none are successful since they didn't make (or even try) for top Ivy schools... so take it for what it's worth.

Just a different perspective: My husband wishes he had been pushed, at least a little bit.... Not Tiger Mom level pushing, but someone being harder on him. As it was, he coasted until mid high school and then went into the all-too-common slide of bright kids who have never had to work hard before it starts to really count. Perceived or real, the lack of any push damaged his relationship with his parents, because he equates it with  unintentional neglect. His parents don't see it this way, in their minds they gave him everything a child could want or need. 

Edited February 2, 2016 by tm919

[PeacefulChaos]

I think the reason for the disconnect is right there in the bolded:  you do the best that you want to.  I think (but I am not going to go comb previous posts to be sure) that's different from what you said before, or maybe I just read it differently.

 

I don't disagree with anything you said in this post.  Sure, if a kid (anyone really) makes a commitment, they should stick it out.  That's not perfectionism.  If a person wants to try something new, they should try it for a while and not quit the minute it gets a little difficult or challenging.  But I think that kids should be able to say "OK, I've tried this, I hate it/stink at it/become ill at the thought of doing it" and parents should respect that in a child --> meaning parents should know when to take it seriously and when to push or nudge the kid a little harder. 

 

I still think that expecting people to make their best effort at every single thing they do is not a good way to live and not a good way to parent.  I don't think that way of life is sustainable.    (Maybe we are defining "best effort" in different ways.  Tonight I am making fried rice for dinner.  It will be good, but it won't be the best possible fried rice I could make considering my cooking skills and availability of ingredients. Kind of a silly example, I know.  But, it's not worth it to me or my family to have me making my best effort at dinner every night.) 

Yes, looking back I think that I was saying 'do your best' and meaning it in the context of two things: it equaling making a good effort and it being something that mattered to you/is important.  

I wasn't thinking in the context of small things like 'do the best possible job of keeping the house clean' or 'do the best possible job of making dinner every night'.  I was thinking much more broadly - 'do the best you can in school', 'make a good effort in the activity you choose', 'do your job well', 'make an effort at being a parent' (not an issue on here, lol - and not saying what style of parenting.  There are all types.  I'm just talking very general, broad terms here).  That sort of thing.  

I think that things like housework and cooking (both of which I detest lol), it falls somewhere under the bigger, broader categories.  Making sure the hungry Chaos Crew gets fed.  Or that there is at least food available.  Making sure it's clean enough that it's not unlivable.  That sort of thing.

 

I can definitely see where I was talking in very broad strokes and others were seeing the smaller things.  I apologize for not being clear originally.  I tend to be that sort of thinker. :)

 

It may all be semantics and not being able to read tone, etc.

 

In general, what we're comparing are those who want to do something (piano/violin/riding/track, etc) and those who are made to do something because the parent wants them to.  Both put in hours and both will end up better because of the time they put in.  They differ in that the former enjoy it - it's not "hours and work" to them.  It's (usually) pleasure (anyone can have an off day).  The latter are doing it merely because they have to.  It's almost all work.  That part is a negative thing.

 

Those who are working at jobs they love enjoy it and are rarely stressed. They feel pleasure.  Those who are working at "jobs" rarely feel pleasure.  It's just something they have to do for the money, so they do it.

 

Then the rest (housecleaning, etc) came up because of the "must be good - or try their best" at everything.  Many of us don't buy that.  There are plenty of things one can let slide if they don't enjoy them.  No harm done at all.

I agree.  

 

I actually have a really good example of the bolded.  That like, just happened.

My DH hates his job.  Well.  He hates a lot of his job.  It sucks the life out of him, sometimes.  And I really, really hate it.  However, he does his job well, and it is work for him.  He is often looking for other ways to earn an income - should he go back to school in the evenings?  Should he look for a job elsewhere? (He's always got feelers out on other jobs).  

He used to often ask me, what do you think I should do?  And I never really had a good answer, and I think he thought that I didn't care in a negative sense.  But finally he asked one day, I said he should do what he wanted to (my usual answer), and went on to explain that what he does doesn't matter to me.  We can find lots of ways to make things work.  But what matters to me is that I find it completely heartbreaking to see him like this.  

Success for us isn't about how much money is in the bank or anything like that.  I wish it wasn't for anyone, but different people have different priorities.  Success should be doing something you enjoy.  It should be loving your life (in a very broad sense lol).

He was like that again today when he came home from lunch - worn out, by the job.  Not a physical exhaustion, so much.  He's a hard worker, but working hard at something that is sucking the life out of you is horrible.  I'm watching this and I'm just.  *shrug*  I don't have words.  It's  incredibly hard.  I wish I could think of something to change it.  I want so badly to be able to do that. :(

 

On the other hand, I don't work at a job besides the PT receptionist one, which is just a few hours a week - I'm PRN, so there's no guarantee of hours.  I'm two blocks away so I go in more during snowstorms than the others.  But then I tend to be bottom of the totem pole for hours when it'd be nice to have more.  But at the same time, I don't mind that.  It gives me time for things I do enjoy.  A few years ago I had the opportunity to direct a full choir for the Easter musical for the first time in a long time.  I could come home and listen to the music, memorize all the parts, go to practice multiple times a week, plan on going early every night of dress rehearsal (which I often did even when I wasn't the choir director because I was still the music director for those, or, in past years, in the cast and ensemble), and never feel worn out from it.  Hours could pass and it didn't bother me in the slightest.  Juggling our schedule and pushing dinners earlier, etc, wasn't a problem because it was doing something I loved.  

 

It's not that I think that DH *should* find something he loves that much lol.  He's more of the sort of person who has a job as a means to an end, not that his job is his passion in life.  But I do wish it wasn't the dreaded thing that it is for him.   :(

Edited February 2, 2016 by PeacefulChaos

[SKL]

I don't really agree that jobs are either loved or hated.  I've had all sorts of jobs.  Most jobs I've had were a balance of intrinsically motivating and tedious.  And all of them were stressful - albeit usually managably.  Even if I love what I'm doing, that doesn't mean there isn't stress over meeting deadlines, ticking people off, etc.  I mean, I love being a parent, and I seem to love it more the harder / more stressful it is.

[Crimson Wife]

Yup, admission's is a bit of roulette there.

 

Same as other uber selective schools. Even Cornell with a 14% acceptance rate is nothing more than pure luck for the most part like being in a region or zip code they want for campus diversity. They fill their freshman class from a plethora of equally qualified applicants.

 

Parenting style is not a factor.

 

It can be. There are a non-insignificant number of kids smart enough for an elite school but who never even apply because they lack parents savvy enough to navigate the whole college admissions minefield & they're stuck in lousy PS without decent guidance counselors.

 

My DH grew up lower-middle-class and the expectation for him was to attend the local no-name public college despite him being valedictorian, NMSF, varsity athlete, and scoring 1450 M+V (pre-recentering) on his SAT's. It was only because he was lucky enough to have a scholarship to a Catholic school where one of his teachers encouraged him to apply to Stanford that he raised his aspirations.

[TammyS]

I dunno. Most parents aren't stupid. And honestly, maybe this is cultural, but I feel it's the opposite message that gets a lot of traction.

 

People don't often hear that easing up on their kids sometimes is OK. 

 

Luckily, many of us work it out anyway. How to encourage grit but not at the expense of other Valuable Things.

 

I guess one's perception of this depends on where you live and what you see.  Where I live, I never see people pushing their kids, at all.  Most homeschoolers seem to fall into the camp of doing much, much less than they could.  Besides my own, I know 1 other family where the kids graduated with an "algebra-1" (or higher) level education.  And I know that some kids can't, but this isn't that.  This is just a combination of parents who are too weak willed to make the kids do their work on a regular basis, and parents who can't make themselves do the work on a regular basis.

 

[TammyS]

Really?  No one wishes they hadn't mellowed out?  I feel like I was a way better parent to my oldest dd.  And, from the comments I get from her about the way I parent the boys, I think she agrees.

 

This reminds me of a friend with a large family who has some grown (with their own kids) children who think that she allows the youngest kids in the family (still minors at home) to get away with murder.

[TammyS]

It can be. There are a non-insignificant number of kids smart enough for an elite school but who never even apply because they lack parents savvy enough to navigate the whole college admissions minefield & they're stuck in lousy PS without decent guidance counselors.

 

My DH grew up lower-middle-class and the expectation for him was to attend the local no-name public college despite him being valedictorian, NMSF, varsity athlete, and scoring 1450 M+V (pre-recentering) on his SAT's. It was only because he was lucky enough to have a scholarship to a Catholic school where one of his teachers encouraged him to apply to Stanford that he raised his aspirations.

 

My husband (and both of his siblings) were exactly like that.  All valedictorians, none encouraged to go to college (one did, eventually, and actually teaches at Georgetown U now), and none did right away.  A little bit of pushing and guidance would have gone a long way.

[FaithManor]

I guess one's perception of this depends on where you live and what you see.  Where I live, I never see people pushing their kids, at all.  Most homeschoolers seem to fall into the camp of doing much, much less than they could.  Besides my own, I know 1 other family where the kids graduated with an "algebra-1" (or higher) level education.  And I know that some kids can't, but this isn't that.  This is just a combination of parents who are too weak willed to make the kids do their work on a regular basis, and parents who can't make themselves do the work on a regular basis.

 

It can be very regional.

 

In my area, the kids that are in 4-H and in scouts appear to have the right amount of pushing. The parents are generally doing a good job, and helping their kids. We do have a segment of sports' obsessed fathers that think their sons should not have to learn to spell "cat" in order to devote themselves to being the best at football and basketball in some rinky dink school district in which they will NEVER get a look by any scout, anywhere. It's kind of delusional for certain, and appears to be parents living vicariously through their kids or something.

 

Oddly enough, it also appears that the students who are in band from 5th - 12th grade are also getting a lot of good parenting, a lot of support from their parents, and that right amount of push.

 

It is kind of split. There is a large group who don't do a lot and just hope that everything will turn out okay, but then there is also a large number who recognize that their kids need to leave high school more than "barely literate", and are worried about career paths, and merit aid for college or vocational school, etc., and do work with their kids to help them achieve at a decent level.

 

I do have to say that the local homeschool community is frightfully unmotivated.

 

It is going to be regional. Go down to Rochester Hills or West Bloomfield (suburbs of Detroit), or to Frankenmuth, or Traverse City and there you will find that the majority of the parents are doing well with motivating their kids and holding to some decent standards.

[creekland]

I guess one's perception of this depends on where you live and what you see.  Where I live, I never see people pushing their kids, at all.  Most homeschoolers seem to fall into the camp of doing much, much less than they could.  Besides my own, I know 1 other family where the kids graduated with an "algebra-1" (or higher) level education.  And I know that some kids can't, but this isn't that.  This is just a combination of parents who are too weak willed to make the kids do their work on a regular basis, and parents who can't make themselves do the work on a regular basis.

 

 

We see this in ps too, of course.

 

I suspect we can all agree that there's a happy mid range between Tiger parenting and letting youngsters totally raise themselves with a Wally World workbook education.

 

To me, both extremes are horrid - different, but horrid.

 

[Ausmumof3]

I agree with you, but the article does not say this per se. It says the girls are modest, polite and appear to be happy. True, they are also viewed as "successful" because of their many accomplishments and their entry into Ivy League. But when the author of the article says that Chua is "having the last laugh," it is said that the girls are not mentally ill oddballs.

They are also young. Seems with my friend group at least that various stuff with how they grew up seems to surface at around 30, possibly when they are figuring out how to raise their own kids. So I think it's early to say.

[Jean in Newcastle]

The "Asian Tiger Mom" is actually American Born!! Her father is a famous and very highly accomplished inventor and an Electrical Engineering Professor at University of California at Berkeley!

Her book sensationalizes a lot of things for the audience. She is self deprecating and exaggerates a lot of incidents. If you are familiar with the genre of late night comedy talk shows, where a minority comedian rips off his own community/race based on the stereotypes that are associated with it and talks about it endlessly to roars of laughter and applause, this book is similar in my opinion. I took the book to be a humorous pandering to the "asian parenting style" stereotype. Warning: Many people don't get this kind of humor nor do they like it. Many find it offensive too.

 

Like many americans, she is not a first generation immigrant and she was not parented like that at all. She says in the book that the reason that she chose to push her daughters to perform at that level is because she is worried that in immigrant families, the kids lose the "immigrant mentality" and thirst for success around the 3rd generation typically.

 

Dh is a First/2nd generation immigrant.  Technically a first but he came to N. America as a child and was taught in Canadian and US schools.  It's a good thing in a lot of ways that the immigrant mentality dies out around that time.  He and his siblings have a dutiful relationship with their parents and while they do love them, duty is much much higher as a motivator for why they spend time with them.  Their parents were so focused on the American dream that they had a superficial relationship with the kids.  All of the kids went into the same field of study because that is what they were told was the fastest way to the American dream.  Now that the grandkids have the freedom to pursue what they truly want to pursue, I'm hearing some bitterness from the dh's siblings that they weren't even allowed to consider those fields. 

 

Dh has done the "when I was a boy" speech at times and I've asked him pointblank "Is this truly what you want for your kids?" and the answer has been "no".  Sure, he survived and has actually done very well in terms of success and he has an excellent work ethic.  But family relationships have suffered greatly.  All the grandkids, btw, have an excellent work ethic as well, despite not being pushed like the parents were.  And they have much better family relationships overall. 

[SKL]

I have to admit that despite identifying with the tiger mom in some respects, I only [gently] "push" one of my kids.  Also, I was not "pushed" as a kid.  I was that kid parents are lucky to get, smart and self-motivated.  I also think my parents figured out that if they pushed me, I would be less motivated than before.

 

My non-pushed kid is even more stubborn than I was.  I do my "pushing" of her in more subtle ways.  I put her in an accelerated school situation and various other learning opportunities.  Our home is structured so that enriching activities are the norm.  And she happens to be bright and a bookworm.  I don't push a ton beyond her own self-motivation; it isn't worth the disharmony in our home.  She probably isn't Harvard or Yale material (unless she decides on her own to go for that), but I think she'll be OK.

[Guest]

Really? No one wishes they hadn't mellowed out? I feel like I was a way better parent to my oldest dd. And, from the comments I get from her about the way I parent the boys, I think she agrees.

I have thought that. I think my firstborn got the best of my parenting in pretty much every way. When I lost my third child at birth, I was not even capable of having my act together much beyond the basics. I do think my second child got a lot of that, my Sad Mommy years, when I could have been enthusiastically practicing piano with him, and going on hikes, and to museums and playgroups like I did with DD. It is a regret.

 

I just took my youngest to the grocery store with me yesterday, which I have not needed to do for several years. I have not needed to bring him along and so he usually misses out on an interesting experience that my firstborn, out of necessity, never missed. And so it has gone with many things. Even just: I had a lot more energy when I was 26 than I do at 44.

[GoodGrief]

Sometimes your parenting decisions have to do with the needs of the individual child. I have not read the book, though I did just read the article. I suspect her decisions were driven in large part by her girls' personalities (which can be hard for people looking from the outside in to understand.)

 

I have three daughters, each extremely different from the others. It's always interesting to me the perception that people who know only one of my daughters will have of me, given what they know of that daughter. The parenting decisions have been extremely different with each.

 

My current senior is exceptionally driven, and I KNOW there are people who only know her who think I am crazy over-involved Tiger Mom (or their idea of what that means.) On the other hand, those who know my laid back youngest child think I am very hands off. She's the one that wanted to go to school (an ordinary one) and I was okay with it. When offered the chance to go to the advanced math class, she declined, and that was fine with me. :-) She does band at school because it's fun, and practices her instrument only at the school. My oldest had her own set of needs, and, boy, there are some interesting perceptions of my parenting from people who only know her, lol.

[creekland]

I have thought that. I think my firstborn got the best of my parenting in pretty much every way. When I lost my third child at birth, I was not even capable of having my act together much beyond the basics. I do think my second child got a lot of that, my Sad Mommy years, when I could have been enthusiastically practicing piano with him, and going on hikes, and to museums and playgroups like I did with DD. It is a regret.

 

I just took my youngest to the grocery store with me yesterday, which I have not needed to do for several years. I have not needed to bring him along and so he usually misses out on an interesting experience that my firstborn, out of necessity, never missed. And so it has gone with many things. Even just: I had a lot more energy when I was 26 than I do at 44.

 

FWIW, I don't consider any of this to be pushing/perfectionism/discipline.  What you are describing is doing things with your kids and that can vary based upon what's going on in the family (just like it did in yours).

 

Another example of this would come from spending money available.  Did the family have more with just one child or more after having earned more, etc.