Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior

Taiwan Parenting
21

Indeed, most US top colleges are not just looking for academics and value well-rounded individuals who complete the predefined diversity mix to make a class of freshmen well balanced. On the other hand, one of the largest colleges in the US this year filled up their roughly 10% quota of foreigners (non-US nationals) with students from China and Taiwan. Most likely because these hard working students pay the full tuition without draining the college facilities, funds and support groups.[/quote]

Sorry but did you read the WSJ article on the Korean guy who got rejected by the Ivies despite having higher grades and test scores than people who got in? That was a great piece of reporting. What happened to him and his family was outrageous. He didn’t get in primarily because his family didn’t donate millions to those institutions or hasn’t been sending its sons there for generations. There’s also a strong hint that he didn’t get in because he was Korean. All this talk of being ‘well-rounded’ is just an excuse not to let better qualified hard working students with an immigrant background into elite institutions. The same institutions did this to Jewish students for decades.

I’m sure he got a great education at Groton that has served him well whichever college he went to. Perhaps his parents and he shouldn’t have fetishized going to an Ivy league school so much.[/quote]

I saw the WSJ article on Henry Park’s failure to gain admittance into the Ivy League schools of his choice slightly differently. Sure, the article cited examples of his Groton classmates who exhibited lower GPA and SAT scores but had other “characteristics” - fair, neutral and unfair - which got them in … being Hispanic (Asians do not count as an affirmative action minority), being wealthy, having connected parents, parents who are alumni, parents who donate millions of dollars to the school in question, being famous or the heir of someone famous, and/or exceling in some recognized and valued extra-curricular activity like sports or volunteer work.

In Henry Park’s case, the article indicates:

“…Henry Park says he made few close friends among Groton faculty or students. Despite his prowess in math – he received the maximum score of 800 on both the math SAT and SAT II achievement test – and in languages, he says he felt isolated as one of only two male Asian students in his class. Few classmates, he says, shared his interests in martial arts and Korean music…”

The same author of that WSJ article also wrote a book where he quoted the MIT Admissions Director, Marilee Jones, who commented on the Henry Park case as follows:

“…It’s possible that Henry Park looked like a thousand other Korean kids with the exact same profile of grades and activities and temperament. My guess is that he just wasn’t involved or interesting enough to surface to the top. I could understand why a university would take a celebrity child, legacy, or development admit over yet another textureless math grind…”

So, I can’t agree with you if you claimed Henry Park was somehow discriminated against by the Ivies because he was Korean. He failed to get in because he was probably perceived by admission committees as being a bland uninteresting stereotypical Asian student who only focused on grades - and nothing else. And, his parents (and Henry) probably were led by some misguided belief that grades and SAT scores - and putting all their nest eggs into the tuition basket at Groton - alone would guarantee them success. Poor research and assumptions on their part. Perhaps some of the blame should fall on whomever was heading college admissions counselling at Groton. At some point in his four years at the school, someone should have pointed out that extracurricular activities and hobbies of ‘martial arts and listening to Korean music’ probably needed filling out with something a little more substantial.

And, where is Henry Park? Most likely, he made it to the other Asian parent Mecca … ‘medical school’ :notworthy: :notworthy:

22

I intend to be the same when I have kids. I don’t see that there’s a problem with that. Your kid(s) will probably turn out better than average.

There is a very narrow focus on the idea that one or two particular things (be they piano or violin, medical school or becoming an actuary) constitute success. The great irony is that if there’s only one position available as a violinist in a particular orchestra, but there are ten applicants, then even if they’re of exceptional quality (say, far better than any white kid), nine will miss out. There’s a 1/10 chance of “being successful”. If, on the other hand, one of those kids had learnt a less prestigious instrument, say the bassoon, if he or she were equally as good at that as at the violin, then he or she would be virtually guaranteed of getting that position simply because of decreased competition. Okay, maybe bassoon is an extreme. Take trumpet though. There’s plenty of great music (and in other genres too) for trumpet and one could make a career as a soloist even. Being a trumpeter, or even a bassoon player, in a top orchestra is better than being a violinist in no orchestra. Painting by numbers never produces a masterpiece.

23

[quote=“It is me again”][quote=“Feiren”]
Sorry but did you read the WSJ article on the Korean guy who got rejected by the Ivies despite having higher grades and test scores than people who got in? That was a great piece of reporting. What happened to him and his family was outrageous. He didn’t get in primarily because his family didn’t donate millions to those institutions or hasn’t been sending its sons there for generations. There’s also a strong hint that he didn’t get in because he was Korean. All this talk of being ‘well-rounded’ is just an excuse not to let better qualified hard working students with an immigrant background into elite institutions. The same institutions did this to Jewish students for decades.

I’m sure he got a great education at Groton that has served him well whichever college he went to. Perhaps his parents and he shouldn’t have fetishized going to an Ivy league school so much.[/quote]

Yes, I read the article. The well rounded argument comes from the fact that these top universities offer a very broad liberal education and student life, which with only smart nerds would be totally dead. It is being with a balance of all sort of students that make the education complete.[/quote]

Broad…maybe not…since they are elitist to begin with.

24

[quote=“headhonchoII”][quote=“It is me again”][quote=“Feiren”]
The well rounded argument comes from the fact that these top universities offer a very broad liberal education and student life, which with only smart nerds would be totally dead. It is being with a balance of all sort of students that make the education complete.[/quote]

Broad…maybe not…since they are elitist to begin with.[/quote][/quote]

They ? The number of courses offered to students is enormous, and varied over so many topics. Harvard has the obligation to organize the class even if just one student enrolls for it.
Elitist ? The students ? Most Ivy League universities have a “need blind” admission policy, where students are admitted without any knowledge about whether they could afford the tuition. Then they have a policy where all students admitted will receive up to 100% financial help if they need that. In Harvard, around 66% of the students receive that financial aid. That aid is average around US$30k per year. Students with parents earning less than US$180k per year, receive financial aid.

25

Yeah Ivy League are not elitist…
Of course they are elitist, that’s why people want to go there and not everybody can get in because it is competitive or else your family need a tonne of money to help you get in! The type of people that go to Ivy League are selected for carefully…therefore I’m not sure about the ‘broad education’ bit. Broad should also include the range of backgrounds of students, their motivations etc.

What I am saying is that just because it is ‘needs blind’, it doesn’t account that many students don’t go to good schools or have good resources to help them get in…good teacher/home environment/extra tuition/extracuricular activities. Some students can do well in spite of not having that…but they are still at a disadvantage from the get-go. Having a ‘needs-blind’ policy actually reduces the number of students from low-income families as naturally the students from richer backgrounds have a higher than average chance to get higher scores and other activities useful for admission purposes.

26

Notice that the article is really just a teaser piece for her new book, which is mentioned at the bottom in her bio. Maybe people in the US will react differently, but running out to buy her book was not the first among my thoughts after reading that article.

27

I think she should be more careful about publicsing her ‘parenting’ methods. She could quite easily find social services knocking on her door if she goes around saying she refused to allow her child to go to the toilet because she hadn’t mastered a piano piece.

In my experience there are children you can bully and children that you can’t. Either way, few of them grow up thanking you for it, whether they achieve success or not.

We too are a no TV household, and things like computer time are restricted (for the youngest members anyway). My youngest is also learning to play the piano, so I know a little about what she’s speaking of. The sad thing is that enough practice will most likely yield the desired achievement. There’s been quite a lot written recently about the ‘10,000 hours of practice to achieve mastery’ hypothesis, which seems to apply across disciplines. I say it’s sad because her little girl would have learned to play that piece without all the histrionics, bullying and abuse simply by practising it enough. So the result she achieved was not due to her excessive methods, but just a natural outcome of the child trying. And there are much more pleasant methods of encouraging your child to try!

I imagine the debate about comparative achievements of Western and Asian cultures and how they can be attributed to parenting and education styles has been done to death on here. Of the research that I’ve read, the out and out winner for improving achievement in learning is positive reinforcement, though whether that’s culturally biased or not I don’t know. It’s certainly the kinder method, and I think that given the choice most parents would rather that their children didn’t achieve greatness than run the risk of psychologically damaging them.

28

Whenever they have a Chinese Mother Superior in one of those Hong Kong movies, they are always super strict and mean and ugly. But somehow the girls and the ghosts always get the last laughs.

29

Yes, I read this one online before seeing it posted here. Being a waiguo-ren (foreigner) here in Taiwan, I have become very interested in the
family dynamics of Chinese / Asian cultures, particularly with very strong emphasis on formal education. After reading this article, I am beginning to see the author’s point as a valid and reasonable one. I’ve seen how the “west’s” children are coddled, and spoiled, pushed toward sports rather than the path toward academic success for the long and short term.
I have seen the “western” style of parenting first-hand, all my life, and have seen what it produces a very significant portion of the time, which is insecure, unfocused, consumerist individualism. It’s an ugly truth, and there is a great divide in American culture particularly, with it’s spectacle-fueled mass culture. Not to mention the problems with right-wing religious dogma. This is a one-two punch in the belly of subsequent generations of “western-style” parents and families.
At this point, I am not a total convert to the author’s style of parenting, but I can tell you that she certainly has come through loud and clear with a very strong “pro-Chinese” approach to parenting, in order to ensure strong, focused children who are obedient, intelligent, and who, in the end of it all, have a relatively high self-esteem a clear purpose in the family structure, and life in general.
There must be some kind of middle ground to be found between Chinese and Western styles of parenting, and I haven’t been able to roughly sketch out what that might look like (yet); but it is definitely on my radar for ongoing discussions and debate for what might be the best approach to creating healthy, strong but caring, secure, successful children. This is great topic to chew on for future use, especially for if / when I decide to make the big step into being a parent.
I welcome any feedback from other readers.

30

Consumerist individualism…at least it’s more individualistic than every other woman walking around with an LV bag! Asia and the West are hardly any different these days the way people live there lives…it’s all a global melting pot.It’s more about the haves and the have-nots, there’s a global middle class, underclass and overclass. The middle class and overclass often have more in common with their fellows in other countries than the underclass in their own country. They see the same movies, read the same books in general, aspire to the same schools and colleges and two cars and bigger refrigerator and flat panel TV.
Westerners don’t have huge amounts to learn from Asian culture and that’s the ugly truth right there…their education system is messed up as any teacher here will tell you. Their work system is not much better. Their treatment of the environment and animals is disastrous in general.

31

[quote=“superpunchline”]Yes, I read this one online before seeing it posted here. Being a waiguo-ren (foreigner) here in Taiwan, I have become very interested in the
family dynamics of Chinese / Asian cultures, particularly with very strong emphasis on formal education. After reading this article, I am beginning to see the author’s point as a valid and reasonable one. I’ve seen how the “west’s” children are coddled, and spoiled, pushed toward sports rather than the path toward academic success for the long and short term.
I have seen the “western” style of parenting first-hand, all my life, and have seen what it produces a very significant portion of the time, which is insecure, unfocused, consumerist individualism. It’s an ugly truth, and there is a great divide in American culture particularly, with it’s spectacle-fueled mass culture. Not to mention the problems with right-wing religious dogma. This is a one-two punch in the belly of subsequent generations of “western-style” parents and families.
At this point, I am not a total convert to the author’s style of parenting, but I can tell you that she certainly has come through loud and clear with a very strong “pro-Chinese” approach to parenting, in order to ensure strong, focused children who are obedient, intelligent, and who, in the end of it all, have a relatively high self-esteem a clear purpose in the family structure, and life in general.
There must be some kind of middle ground to be found between Chinese and Western styles of parenting, and I haven’t been able to roughly sketch out what that might look like (yet); but it is definitely on my radar for ongoing discussions and debate for what might be the best approach to creating healthy, strong but caring, secure, successful children. This is great topic to chew on for future use, especially for if / when I decide to make the big step into being a parent.
I welcome any feedback from other readers.[/quote]

I think you’re confusing consumerism with Western parenting style. It’s the former that’s responsible for a lot of the negative aspects of Western society that you mention here. Western parenting style (if it’s possible to generalise) also emphasises respect, intelligence and achievement, but it is mutual respect rather than blind, unquestioning respect, and actual understanding of concepts rather than learning by rote. I agree that there’s a greater emphasis on sports and arts, that these are more highly valued, but if you look at Finnish education, you’ll see that that also puts a high value on such things, and Finland scores highly on international league tables of academic success. I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive.

On a side note, I read the link to the book on Amazon and at the bottom of the page there’s a discussion where a couple of Chinese contributors have protested that this is not typical of Chinese parenting methods. I’d like to add that the blurb states that one of the daughters was a Suzuki piano student and I’d like to say that this woman’s approach is not part of Suzuki theory, philosophy or methods, and had it been known what she was doing to her child at home she would most likely have been refused lessons.

32

It’s all very well to churn out a math prodigy or a piano genius, but those kind of people are generally very one-dimensional, and scared as hell outside their area of expertise. Can Chua’s magic superkid grow tomatoes, chervil, and coriander? Maintain an outboard boat and trouble shoot the motor in a two meter swell? Sew her own sleeping bag? Manage a camping trip for forty ten year olds? Run 5 km in 25 minutes? paint in oils? Replace a dripping tap washer, or build an igloo? Discuss the future of human exploration of space? Cook more than 100 different dishes in an evening? Program the TV to record three weeks of Entourage (not that you’d want to)? Make their own shoes? Assess the dietary and training needs of a six week old Labrador puppy, or saddle a horse? Ski double black runs, or compete in biathlon? Take out the garbage? Direct traffic around a freeway accident without further endangering lives? Read books to blind children? Change a tire in the rain? Probably not. Long live the service industry for the less rounded of the next generation.

33

mmmm I am not a prodigy or genius and I still can’t do any of those things!!! Urban living.

34

[quote=“superpunchline”]Yes, I read this one online before seeing it posted here. Being a waiguo-ren (foreigner) here in Taiwan, I have become very interested in the
family dynamics of Chinese / Asian cultures, particularly with very strong emphasis on formal education. After reading this article, I am beginning to see the author’s point as a valid and reasonable one. I’ve seen how the “west’s” children are coddled, and spoiled, pushed toward sports rather than the path toward academic success for the long and short term.
I have seen the “western” style of parenting first-hand, all my life, and have seen what it produces a very significant portion of the time, which is insecure, unfocused, consumerist individualism. It’s an ugly truth, and there is a great divide in American culture particularly, with it’s spectacle-fueled mass culture. Not to mention the problems with right-wing religious dogma. This is a one-two punch in the belly of subsequent generations of “western-style” parents and families.
At this point, I am not a total convert to the author’s style of parenting, but I can tell you that she certainly has come through loud and clear with a very strong “pro-Chinese” approach to parenting, in order to ensure strong, focused children who are obedient, intelligent, and who, in the end of it all, have a relatively high self-esteem a clear purpose in the family structure, and life in general.
There must be some kind of middle ground to be found between Chinese and Western styles of parenting, and I haven’t been able to roughly sketch out what that might look like (yet); but it is definitely on my radar for ongoing discussions and debate for what might be the best approach to creating healthy, strong but caring, secure, successful children. This is great topic to chew on for future use, especially for if / when I decide to make the big step into being a parent.
I welcome any feedback from other readers.[/quote]

This assumes that there’s one model of Western education. As has been pointed out already, the Finns do things very differently. Even within a single English speaking country, there will be plenty of different approaches. An elite boarding school is different to a Steiner school which is different to a government school. Certainly, if we’re going to talk about an ethnic minority punching well above its bodyweight, then we’d want to look at the Jews, not the Chinese and they seem to take a very different approach to the author of that article.

I also wouldn’t say that kids who have parents like that woman do come out with “a relatively high self-esteem”. Many end up with extreme hangups as a result and basically either end up finally standing up to their parents in their late thirties or forties (especially when they have their own kids and don’t want to raise them anything like how they were raised) or they lie to their parents or subtly avoid contact with them. Read the comments section for that article and see how many Asians were even more scathing of her than the average non-Asian posters.

35

Oh come on, divea, don’t be so hard on yourself. I bet you could take out the garbage. :thumbsup:

36

I’m pretty sure MT has changed a tire in the rain, so he’s OK.

37

:discodance:

38

I can but don’t ask me to do the recycle thingy :no-no: . I paid someone for that :laughing:

39

In case you missed it, there is also a video:

online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … bs%3Dvideo

40

This mother is beyond disgusting. She doesn’t want what’s best for her kids, she wants top bragging rights. I would much rather have a kid that’s happy, healthy, and well adjusted than a piano playing Harvard graduate that’s miserable and hates me. I mean, so what if your daughter played at Carnegie Hall? If she truly has a passion and a talent for music, then she’ll push herself and make it without your crazy. If she doesn’t, then what’s the point, besides something to brag about? As someone who went to a ‘top’ university and achieved some sort of academic ‘success’ (although my choice of major probably would have gotten me disowned by this woman), I can attest that having that degree with that school’s name on it doesn’t make me happy (not that it makes me unhappy, it just doesn’t really factor in). A lot of the students at my school were downright miserable; two of the ‘prodigies’ in my class (one of whom started college at 15) actually ended up at the mental hospital hospital and were never seen again.
Strict parenting is one thing, but deeming (and calling) your kid a failure unless they meet your extremely narrow definition of success is just wrong.

As for the top schools admissions thing. A university wants more than someone who will just sit there in class, do the work, and get good grades. Those kids are a dime a dozen. They want a kid who will do that, plus write for the school paper, or play on a sports team, or join some clubs, or basically just do something outside of classes to contribute to the community. Think of all the stuff that goes on at a typical university. If all of the high-scoring math nerds got in, a lot of that stuff likely wouldn’t happen anymore because everyone would be too busy studying, and the university would be poorer for it.
I can definitely see where the universities are coming from with the legacy admissions (not that I agree with them). If the kid is qualified, won’t be a detriment to the university, and comes with a big donation, then why not admit them? As long as there aren’t too many of them, it doesn’t do the university any harm. Admissions aren’t meant to be fair, they’re meant to benefit the university as much as possible.