It's Still Racism: WSJ's "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior"

I'd argue that Japan is a very creative place. In terms of art, entrepreneurship, technological discovery, etc. And this has happened despite parents placing a high premium on education. Japan has one of the highest if not the highest % of population with degrees.

Couple of years back some Japanese teachers I was talking to told me that 10(?) years ago, in order to lessen the gap between the top students and the worst students, the board of education started to make the syllabus at the pre-university level easier. But instead, the gap today is wider than b4, because the kids with Tiger-Moms were pushed to go for more juku to make up for the lack of education they were getting in school. And in recent years there has been debate on making the syllabus more difficult again.

Also, your typical Japanese junior high school kid in public school spends a lot more hours at school+juku than a Sg kid.

 

Taiwanese has an affinity for both American and Japanese culture, but it's still inherently Chinese. Not many Taiwanese that aren't wearing diapers want to be Japanese. It's a love-hate thing, but more hate if you point it out.

I think the pragmatic aspect would trump the prestige aspect. They're starting and owning their own businesses and learning real world experiences, which is what being in Harvard was supposed to boost.

An 18 yr old high school sports sensation looking at the pros over an Ivy League scholarship would be a different story.

 

the old people hate japan but the kids love it.. of course no one wants to "be" japanese, but they do strive to emulate it.

 

It depends on how old. WW2 generation elderly were brainwashed into loving Japanese culture and taught that the Japanese could do no wrong. The generation under that had to live with those parents.

As for the kids, it wears off once they get older and learn about the colonization and indoctrination. Liking some aspects such as anime, music, or video games doesn't mean they want the Japanese way of life.

 

That may be the case and I will admit my knowledge of Japanese education is very limited. I am only going off of things I have read and observed about Japanese society and it does seem like within the last 20 years they have become less of a rigid society.

 

Except that part of the Tiger Mom motivation is prestige and dropping out of Harvard for something as untested as Microsoft in the late 70's or Facebook in 2004, untried and at the time trivial, would be ulikely to motivate a Tiger mom from blessing their children from dropping out of the most prestigious university in the country. Also as MFW noted part of the nature driving Tiger mothers is risk. There is a very very high risk to becoming an entrepeneur, especially as an undergrad versus potential return on graduating with a Harvard degree.

 

Until one of these Chinese tiger mothers actually creates a financially successful musician, who becomes a global brand before age 25, a la GaGa, Beyonce, Katy Perry, etc.... color me distinctly unimpressed with their array of lonely dysfunctional fiddle-players, plucking away anonymously for peanuts in municipal symphonies and doing weddings on weekends to pay rent.

 

On a serious note, I think there is a balance that can be struck, with pushing for being the best, and also allowing the child to pursue their own interests. Perhaps pushing them to be the best at their own interest whatever that is.

I knew someone who was a daughter of one of these types of mothers. She got excellent grades went to a prep boarding shcool, went to Smith College.

Sadly she had eating disorders, alcoholism, broken or severely damaged relationship with her family, and was actually diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because of this kind of child rearing.

After seeing that I don't think I'm so in favor of the hard core tiger mom strategy. Perhaps a modified one would be OK.

 

What's she gonna do? Kick him/her out? It ultimately depends on the kid calling their bluff and earning their eventual, if begrudging, support.

 

For those interested, the "racist" Amy Chua is appearing on Colbert on Tuesday.

 

How can Amy be a Chinese tiger mother if she was born, raised, and educated in the United States? How would she even know how a true Chinese mother living in China raised their child? She couldn't ask her own mother since she was born in the Philippines and immigrated to the US.

I believe the correct term for Amy is paper tiger.

 

There have been several posts that answered you directly but you apparently did not read them.

You can/ do not have a model/ a formula to make a lady Gaga, Beyonce ...
If you leave 100 million kids to follow their paths, you end up with a handful of lady Gaga, Beyonce and 99.9 millions kids who have to struggle to make ends meet their whole life.

If you follow the model of "these Chinese Tiger mothers" , you have no lady Gaga but you have a lots more kids who have it easier down the road, earning the fruit of their labor, so to speak.

 

Possibly but you may also have plenty more kids with all kinds of stress disorders, depression, post traumatic stress disorder, and long list of other conditions.

 

As if the Lady Gaga successes and rejects don't have any of the above.

 

true but from different causes

 

Chuckles. I gotta tell ya, this positive reinforcement thing is one of the biggest piles of horsesh1t to come about since the 60's. I mean, gee really, you keeping telling a kid so so damn wonderful he might like you more? Wow. I mean, hey, even if you toss a dog a bone, it might lick your hand.

If everybody is "special," then nobody is special. Take a moment to think about what that actually means. You ask an eight year old, what colour is that, he says red. "Great." What shape is that, triangle. "Wonderful." What is one plus one... pretty soon one of two things happen:

1) It's a race to the bottom, pretty soon you're praising the kid just for doing nothing
2) How long do you think before the novelty wears off?

A teacher in a class of 20 can't keep telling every kid he's wonderful because:

1) He is not
2) If everyone is special, see above
3) If she's telling everybody is special, she's not doing something, aka. teach

Last but not the least, at some point in your life, somebody is gonna tell that kid the truth, that he ain't the ****. Better learn the lesson sooner than later.

Of course, if a lack of disciplined approach with a focus on reinforcement is somehow superior, you'd expect the education level to have improved. Yet every single measurable indicator point otherwise...

How do you figure? Singapore gained its independence in '65. It's a city state of 5 million people. It's desperately small and short on just about every resource, not the least of which is water, which is threatens to go to war with Malaysia should its water gets cut off. How much more innovative do you expect it to be?

I'll tell you this. I'm not expecting Singapore to lead any technological innovation, ever. It's not just Singapore either. Insert your random tiny but wealthy country of similar size and see how innovative they are.

We've swung so far in the "wrong" direction, balance is hardly an issue any more. The better phrase is, getting things back on track.

Is an ugly building non-functional? Is a proven design useless? An engineer gives you both. Of course, all else equal, I'd rather my building be aesthetically pleasing. Not a requirement though. On the other hand, you can design the prettiest building in the world, if it can't handle its weight, it'll collapse. Period. Hence an architect needs an engineer. Of course, you could learn the sciences behind it. But that will make you an engineer.

I'm not looking it in the wrong way at all. 50, 60 years ago, it wasn't said that the US was more creative than China. It was already, implied and otherwise assumed. It wasn't true even back then, but it doesn't matter. Nobody cared. What people said was, America had by far the better education system. Which was absolutely true. Those famous American institutions of higher learning were populated by AMERICANS who were worth their salt. Everybody is smart and creative but those Americans were educated. Made the whole difference in the world.

Then it changed. Those famous American institutions are still there, but ever increasingly, they aren't populated by Americans any more. For a while it wasn't blatantly obvious because those non-American graduates, the best and brightest, that filled those institutions tended to stay in America, because that is where the opportunity was, and where the other brightest were. But how soon do you think those foreigners realize that THEY are the real ones generating the opportunities and that THEY could do it any where, especially if foreign wages and opportunities begin to intersect?

The bottom line. Those innovations that occurred in America, it wasn't because Americans are more innovative/creative. It was because it was educated.

If I somehow created a time machine and met a homo erectus. He's perfectly creative and intelligent (as history tells us). But if I asked him to make me a car, he can't do it. Why? He's gotta progress a wee bit further with the wheel first.

 

One thing is obvious of course. Bill Gates isn't in finance. I don't think you are either. If I remember correctly, Bill Gates was what, one to one and half year from graduating? Was finishing Comp Sci at Harvard was gonna kill his brain/creativity? Could he not have done what he did if he waited and finished? I won't answer that question because I think it's silly to speculate on alternate history. I'm glad for Bill Gates that he succeeded beyond probably even his own wildest imagination. But as I've mentioned, he's still the odd man out.

Forget just one, you could have five additional Bill Gates, the expected return is still way below finishing Harvard. You go tell a "tiger mom" with certainty, hey, your kid is Bill Gates who will earn $xyz billion. Then ask her if it's OK for him to drop out. As it stands? The reward don't compensate nearly enough for the risk.

 

I think this article is doing two things.


It's driving people to two extremes. The "hands-on" vs. the "laissez faire" approaches...

Why can't there be a mixture of the two by parents? I feel like moderation has been lost in society.. in many things, this just being one of them.


But for the record if I were to pick between a personality-less workaholic and an outgoing moron, I'd pick the moron.

Life is too short to be a rigid stick

 

There's a big difference between psychologically traumatizing your kid and having discipline. clearly you're unable to tell the difference. Is it positive reinforcement not to force your kids to play an instrument until they hate it for the rest of their lives, even though they don't have the talent or will to become the best? You act like the only good way to raise a kid is to constantly tell them they're worthless, how being 2nd in the class isn't good enough, or beating them when they mess up, for the sake of showing off to your peers.

Get a grip. This isn't about kids being special or not, this is about something fundamental. Why do kids in abusive households tend to grow up and become abusive? Because that's the way they were taught. That's what they grew up around. Did Bill Gates succeed because his father took out the belt whenever he got a compiler error programming FORTRAN? No, he succeeded because he had the will to take advantage of his opportunities.

What the hell are you on about? No one here is arguing that telling your kids they're special and being overprotective is good parenting. Get that straw man out of here.

Again, you totally disregard the fact that it's perfectly possible to have disciplined parenting WITHOUT resorting to what these women are doing. Even if you're not the absolute best at something, it does not mean you're worthless.