I am chinese and grew up in a strict household when it came to academics, but what a bunch of ego-stroking crap written in that article. I am thankful that my mother would push me and for not letting me always take the easy way out, but there are many times when it was overboard in an unhealthy way.
For one, it creates a limited view of what "success" is and the means to achieve it. My parents had a big fixation on "financial stability" and pushed that on my sister and me. That meant a lot of careers weren't even considered, and music and any other extra-curricular activities were just to make you seem more "rounded".
Growing up I would always be compared to other people. To my sister (she was more the straight-A student, I was the "if this doesn't interest me who cares" type), to other chinese friends. I think it's interesting to fast forward 10 years later and see what effect if any it had on us. The funny thing is that we are all across the board.
The "straight-A, 1600 SAT score student that went to Harvard" that we were always compared to? Most just ended up in successful professions like doctor or lawyer (and I became an engineer haha). Just like their less strict, "western" counter-parts. Nothing against hard work and success, but the way my mom would go on about it back then it was like they were about to win the nobel prize or something and I was gonna be a deadbeat in the streets. The funny thing is my mom looks at it now and realizes how absurd it kind of was.
Some of my friends were not as lucky, and I had a few completely shutdown/rebel in college because they realized they didn't want to live their life dictated by parents or took advantage of their freedom in an unhealthy way. I think there are some good things to take away from this, but "superior"? Please.
I'm from a similarly "Indian" background, and I should admit reading this article was nauseating. I know the zombie people this kind of approach makes with no identity of their own, and it's nothing to be proud of. I have a question - so how many of these kids with "Chinese" way of raising are leaders in their industry? If they excelled all through their academics, does this mean they'll excel in real life too? Will they have the same kind of linear challenges that an academic setting offers?
Even going from college -> work it's clear that your high school/college achievements mean jack after some work experience. I've seen (and personally experienced) a few people "wise up" in college/entering the workforce and excel in their fields afterward, even if they did poorly growing up.
My opinion is that this type of upbringing tends to produce kids that excel at what they do in their respective fields, but no guarantee that it produces a leader. It also ends up like you described, "zombie people" where everybody that's asian tends to be in health, law, or engineering or a "safer" industry hahaha.
For instance, my co-founder and I having entered the startup space, note a lack of Chinese people in this space (like founders), but a ton in general software development roles.
"Some of my friends were not as lucky, and I had a few completely shutdown/rebel in college because they realized they didn't want to live their life dictated by parents or took advantage of their freedom in an unhealthy way." I went to an engineering school and I observed a lot of this. A lot of kids get to college for the work force and when the gun gets taken away from their head don't have the motivation they once did.
So basically "Chinese Mother" in this term means tyrannical dictator who will drive their children to suicide/drugs/anorexia/obesity/(other reaction to mental abuse) and those that don't will look like huge successes and all those that did get driven to some coping mechanism are branded as been raised by "Western Mothers".
One of my friends had, I guess what would qualify as, a "Chinese Mother" for a father. He was a totalitarian... until he got kicked in the groin by his son at age 13 (with his leg that was in a plaster cast at the time) and missed three days of work (confirmed by my mother who worked with him) for "personal reasons". Suddenly, almost overnight, he was allowed to go to sleepovers, he joined the school play, his grades dropped because he was allowed out to see his friends. His dad was an arrogant douche, it's not a social or racial difference because he'd come from working class British background. It's a personality type and it's called a raging pompous douchebag AKA King Douche.
I fail to see how orchestrating my child's life will lead to my child being a success. It will lead to me being a success by proxy, which is really all what these parents care about. They're the football/hockey/soccer/(insert sport) parents that force their kid to every single game, to every single practice no matter what whether the child wants to be in the sport or not, because the parent never got the chance/almost made it pro/whatever narcissistic reason.
I've seen a lot of people with this type of overbearing psycho parent wind up deep in the drug scene because they never got their parents approval. Whilst the kids that don't have to fight for approval in every area of their life all seem to end up with decent lives because they learnt the necessary coping skills.
Upvoted because you're right that it is a troll, and it is sad and telling that the WSJ stoops to this level. However, I think it is worth considering that some of the ideas in the article have merit, and if the WSJ hadn't chosen the most extreme and inflammatory example they could find, it might have stimulated a very interesting argument here on HN.
I also wonder whether there is an element of anti-Chinese xenophobia here as well as the obvious for-profit journalistic trolling.
Push your children to succeed. Don't let them give up at the first impasse, because kids really can be lazy if you let them get away with it.
Take that sentiment and mix it with some freedom: Instead of making them play the violin/piano and study pre-med, let them choose their goals. "Want to be an actor? Great! But you're going to be the best actor in that play and I won't tolerate anything less." "Guitar? Sure! ... You're not coming out of your room until you nail Stairway."
Not all Chinese folks are as psycho as this gal. A Chinese guy I worked with told me that he put it to his son this way: "You can do what ever you want, I just want you to excel at whatever you do."
First, that it's possible to speak harshly to children and make them feel ashamed without harming them, if they feel secure in your love.
There are many parents who never say an unkind word to their parents but who leave their children feeling insecure and unloved. There are parents who achieve the opposite. A child who feel unvalued and insecure may feel most scared and vulnerable when his parents are critical of him, but the fault lies with the child feeling unvalued -- that is where his parents went wrong, not in criticizing him. The two things are independent. Parents should concentrate on making their kids feel loved and valued enough that a little criticism won't traumatize them, instead of trying to be so bland and positive that their kids' security is never tested.
That's exactly what she illustrates in her two contrasting examples: "Once when I was young—maybe more than once—when I was extremely disrespectful to my mother, my father angrily called me "garbage" in our native Hokkien dialect. It worked really well. I felt terrible and deeply ashamed of what I had done. But it didn't damage my self-esteem or anything like that. I knew exactly how highly he thought of me." And later: "I also once heard a Western father toast his adult daughter by calling her 'beautiful and incredibly competent.' She later told me that made her feel like garbage."
That squares with my experience quite well. Many children of unfailingly polite and supportive parents will tell you they hate their parents' guts, that their parents never loved them, and that their parents made them feel worthless. Perhaps most of those kids are wrong about their parents not loving them -- perhaps -- but their feelings show how ineffective it is to mask your negative emotions and deal with your children through a rose-colored facade. Children are quick to sense (or wrongly assume) that flattering words hide a lack of real affection, or even hide resentment, and they know when they're being disciplined by a parent who loves them and would lay their life down for them. Of course, it's easier to simply suck up to your kids than to take on the much harder task of loving them unshakably and making sure they understand that. (Easier not just in the sense of being more pleasant, but also in the sense that people often try and fail to convince their children they really love them. In engineering we would say that something with such a high failure rate has no place in a well-designed system, but I think in childrearing you have to accept that this is a vital step that cannot be designed out no matter how hard it is.) Being careful never to say anything harsh to your children because they doubt your love and loyalty is like driving extra carefully because you failed to buy car insurance -- it doesn't change your fundamental irresponsibility.
Second, that most of parenting is predicated on taking freedom away from children because parents know better.
It is better to state that up front than to try to pull off a sham where children are told they have freedom, but at the last second their parents lose their nerve and try to stop them from doing things. My own parents were a bit like this -- they would maintain the fiction that I had freedom of choice, trying persuade me to change my mind, until absolutely the last minute. Then they would find some excuse for stopping me from doing what I decided to do. That was common behavior for my friends' parents, too. It's better to be honest than to practice this kind of hypocrisy.
Third, that hard work and mastery lead to greater satisfaction than dabbling. No need to explain that here. Why shouldn't parents teach this to kids with the same urgency and insistence that they teach other facts of life?
Fourth (related to two and three), that forcing kids to work can lead to benefits that the children appreciate later. "Western parents worry a lot about their children's self-esteem. But as a parent, one of the worst things you can do for your child's self-esteem is to let them give up." Americans are schizophrenic about this, accepting it readily in the case of athletics and rejecting it with horror in other areas. Why is the piano so much different from basketball? Or we cling to the cop-out of playing the compassionate "good guy" and leaving the less pleasant job to coaches and teachers. Once again, children are sensitive to hypocrisy: do you approve of the discipline imposed by coaches and teachers or not? If you do, why are you such a softie yourself? Don't you love them enough to be tough with them? At report card time, I always felt most sorry for the kid who got bad grades and didn't get in trouble with his parents. The other kids are talking about how their parents yelled at them, and this kid gets to say... what? That he has great parents who love him so much they are nice to him even when he gets bad grades? He knows that isn't the reason.
The article caricatures all of these ideas. Possibly the author assumes they are alien and unacceptable to American culture and just wants to make them clear and memorable, but the vibe I got was that the author is arrogantly, perversely savoring her readers' inability to accept her ideas. In either case, the WSJ picked an author whose presentation of these ideas is so inflammatory as to alienate readers. The article does not make a sincere effort at addressing the predictable concerns of the audience. That was a deliberate rhetorical choice, by the author and definitely by the WSJ. If we want to evaluate these ideas fairly, we should imagine how they could best be presented to our own sensibilities and reconciled with our own ideas, instead of allowing the WSJ to dictate the outcome by presenting the ideas in such a negative light.
In the final paragraph of the article, the author presents a false opposition where a sincere author would offer a synthesis: "Western parents try to respect their children's individuality, encouraging them to pursue their true passions, supporting their choices, and providing positive reinforcement and a nurturing environment. By contrast, the Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future, letting them see what they're capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away."
Since the author did not offer a synthesis, it's up to us to provide one for ourselves.
P.S. Here's another interesting angle, better written and more persuasive for a western audience:
The author herself is Asian... and it refers to not just Asians, but immigrant families in general. Though I didn't know that about Jamaican and Irish-American families, as she states.
I would submit that this refers not to Asians in general, but specifically to those Asians who are also immigrants. The simple act of uprooting and replanting oneself in another country for the sake of better economic potential is probably a far better indicator of the over-achieving drive described.
I think the author was trying to be provocative, but the beginning was absolutely trollish. As I was reading, for a moment I thought the article salvaged itself somewhat, but once it started again on the topic of grades it descended into troll-dom big time.
I grew up in China. My impression was that indeed many Chinese parents are like that, but their kids also tend to be very mediocre. Kids trained like this lack real passion for things, as they were always forced to do this and that.
Those Chinese that are elites, on the other hand, tend to have parents who are easy-going, and give more room to their kids' development.
It's sad that this author is proud of what she's being doing. I'm personally quite disgusted by this article.
I love this. It's an honest and unapologetic explanation of a parenting style that is not dominant in the US but has some real advantages. It teaches discipline and hard work, and it gets kids to acquire useful skills. Sure, it has its disadvantages, as noted by some commenters here. Let's not deny the obvious, though. It's no coincidence that they author was pushed insanely hard by her mother and ended up a professor at the top law school in the country.
Selection bias. The author is published because she ended up a professor at the top law school in the country. Plenty of Chinese mothers raise mediocre children, and they don't get to write opinion pieces in Murdoch rags. (Or did you take it literally when she claimed that Chinese children don't get B's?)
But you're right that this parenting style has benefits. It strikes a chord with me, as a parent of small children, when she says that you're not doing them any favors by letting them give up. But parents have to find the right balance. Maybe the author's children benefited from having both kinds of parents, one strict and Chinese, one doting and Western---Cue shock and horror from Chinese grandparents. I know many successful children of mixed East/West families. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but so is this article.
It also has an effect at producing ruthlessly sneaky folks who learn to game the system their parents have set up by producing an equivalent appearance of conforming success with far less work.
I imagine that being conditioned from young to solely work hard and do what you're told will on average not produce independent, creative, and self-motivating people who are strong decision makers (i.e. leaders).
While I'm sure the parents have good intentions, extreme parenting is in most cases probably not healthy or optimal, including the opposite extreme where kids are given no structure or rules of any kind. Rules and expectations should be established, but give some degree of freedom so that they can discover things on their own, and yes, even make mistakes. How are they supposed to grow if they aren't ever allowed to make their own choices and are terrified of failure?
> I told [my seven year old daughter] to stop being lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic. Jed took me aside. He told me to stop insulting Lulu—which I wasn't even doing, I was just motivating her—and that he didn't think threatening Lulu was helpful.
You might call it good parenting. I call it bat-shit crazy.
When you have to belittle your child to motivate them, it truly speaks of you as a parent.
IIRC from what I read on Carrot VS Stick methods for dog training, a combined usage worked effectively ~95% of the time. The carrot worked effectively ~80% of the time. The stick worked effectively ~30% of the time. No reinforcement worked effectively ~14% of the time. (I'll have to dig through my books to find where I read these figures)
Why do I have the strong suspicion that this woman's kids are a huge ass exception to the psycho-parenting norm?
>Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do... be in a school play; choose their own extracurricular activities; play any instrument other than the piano or violin.
don't know how much of this is exaggeration but this is just sad and I feel sorry for kids that have parents like that.
(sorry if this is going to be rather reactionary and offensive)
All day I've been getting emails and IM's from my East Asian friends about this article. As somebody who grew up in and around kids with parents like this I have to call hooey on it.
All of my East Asian friends were miserable, tired, sad kids. A couple committed suicide, most had health problems, alcoholism, severe depression, drug additions, and the rest are today broken people on the inside who can't get through a simple phone call with their parents without breaking into sobbing tears after hanging up. All of them have spoken outwardly and quite vocally a wish for a Western upbringing, one that fostered creativity and the genesis of ideas - not conformance to a meaningless system of symbolic but useless achievements that have provided nothing in particular for their lives except the ability to get their parents to back off for a few minutes.
Where this woman makes a mistake is in assuming that outward, public success (yes, all of them work good jobs, and have fine educations) is the most important thing in life.
The question she has never thought to ask herself is "so what?" So what if little Xiao Yan or Jin Ho or Akiko can perform some dastardly complex piece on the violin on command? Congratulations, you've raised a music box. Can they write music of the same complexity? Can they create? Or was all of that destroyed when their soul was crushed just so they could perform that one more Caprice?
So what if they land a decent job in some field they don't care for? None of my dozen or so friends excel in the professional jobs. In fact, most are mediocre, and stay quiet and keep their heads down. They stand unrecognized, and are considered nothing more than solid, reliable employees, but nothing particularly special. They're a dime a dozen, replaceable cogs in a corporate machine. They don't make team lead, department head, business unit manager or any other mark of a successful corporate career. They toil away for 20 years in some anonymous cube, counting the minutes until quitting time everyday and then leaving for the day with nobody to say goodbye to.
This woman, while making good points about the need to push children to excellence (and the softness of modern Western concepts about child rearing and the overemphasis on false-self esteem), treats her kids like a psychopath.
Reasonable statements like "What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you're good at it" are then blasted into cookoo-land by a list of rules that are sure to turn her kids into social misfits, unfit to navigate a complex personal or professional life and succeed in it.
This part really stood out to me:
"If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A."
What she should really be asking herself is this -- how come Westerners, with their wishy washy parents, still end up producing an incredible number of successful people (by any measure of the word)? I mean, she has her kids learning Violin and Piano, not a Pipa and Guzheng -- is the vast irony of that not lost on her?
Also known as "Why asian children have grey hair by the end of high school". At least my asian high school valedictorian did...
I'm all for people pushing themselves to that point - I guess in asian families, it's OK to force that on your kids to show them where their limits truly are.
Yes, but put an authority figure behind the majority (60%) of people and they'll commit murder. Given the right manipulation virtually everyone will commit murder (certain variations of Milgram's experiment got up to 90% in NA, whilst the Standard test got 92% in the Netherlands - so I can't imagine what the manipulative variations would achieve there).
I don't find becoming an SS commandant to be a particularly appealing way to raise my children. Sure, it might get them a high paying job, but it won't get them happiness because that's a self-fulfilling need.
I'm happy because I'm married, I have stable financials and I get to spend my leisure time doing things that I enjoy like writing. None of which my parents had a hand in achieving, and somehow I don't think I would enjoy them if my parents did have a hand in it. I wouldn't be happy if my parents handed me cash, in fact right now I'm in a huge conundrum because my parents said they're buying me and my wife plane tickets. They had no hand in me getting married (I would actually join a religion to simply thank a deity for this one) aside from well wishes. And they had no hand in my enjoying to write.
First off, I believe it is alright to be harsh on your children but instead of 'deadly and cold' harsh, a parent should learn how to motive the kid, instead of punishing him/her. In psychology, it has been proven that positive reinforcement is more effective in learning than negative reinforcement. This very basic concept should be applied to instill motivation and curiosity in children.
For example, when I was young, my parents gave me $1 for any exam I got higher than a 95(A), which taught me to not only earn good grades but to appreciate the value of money. Guess what, it is funny when you think that by giving money as reward, the kid will want to spend it on something he/she likes. But this had the opposite effect, I saved every penny I could (treasure hunt for money everywhere!) until I accrued to ~$400. I had learned the value of earning money, but not to spend it. (By the time I was about 12 yrs old, this reinforcement was not needed anymore and my parents took it away when they needed it the most- during a family crisis.) My reaction? Gratitude, if it was for the good of the family, then my savings and hard work had a purpose.
This saving habit I see a lot in the Eastern culture, and not so much in the Western culture. Asians learn to save, not to spend (money they don't have). This way of thinking will affect their adulthood- in the form of credit cards- which might help explain the current economic crisis...
Going back to treating your children harshly, it is alright up until a certain age. See, because in an attempt to protect your children from bad influence, which there is so much in this world, you have to be harsh because your children have no idea of the dangers out there and your responsibility is to shield your kids at any cost.
Results? There is so much horrible things in the Western culture that I will risk everything to protect my children from getting influenced by. I like American freedom, but when that affects our children (alcohol, drugs, sex) it is horribly wrong. Since kids get influenced more by their peers than by parents themselves (psyc tested), it is our responsibility to protect them, even if it means hurting their self esteem.
MIND IT, but this is up until a point in their growth, once they reach adulthood (college), let them free to develop their own identity. That is when they learn self confidence, self worth, independence, and creativity. So many things to be learned in college.
It is funny that the very idea of 'not giving up', an essential characteristic of an entrepreneur, was drilled into Asian children from so young. Yet, how many of those kids turn out to be Asian leaders in this world? (i.e. entrepreneurs, managers, etc). Not many. This is the dark side of Asian parenting.
A solution will be to be harsh to kids AS WELL as to explain the motives behind parent punishing. You are teaching emotional intelligence to the child, an essential ingredient for leadership success. Read "Emotional Intelligence: Why it Matters More than IQ". The book explores how society focuses so much on IQ and not EQ, turning them into unfunctional adults. So far, the best education method I have seen is at Church (I am not not religious though).
As for Westerners, how many brats turn out badly because you failed to be harsh at them? Be harsh, it is ONLY NECESSARY, but let them understand the reasons behind your decision. Give them the trust that they will understand what is best for them by following your rules- this teaches them empathy.
See the pattern? Raise children to be entrepreneurs so they can appreciate the value of money, self motivation, and empathy. Teach them in school to be entrepreneurs that create value in society- education is to blame in here- there are business schools (money driven people) but not entrepreneurship schools (value driven people).
In short, entrepreneurship (not business) ideals can solve most of the problems in society.
Where to start? Entrepreneurship school(in college).
Ok in what world is what's described in the article a better mom? Forcing there children to learn something they don't want just for a college application or building "character" (can someone please explain the concept to me, my father is too liberal I suppose) is exactly what a parent shouldn't do. I am in a typical middle class Indian family, but the idea that goes around is "Its your bloody life, make good of it". My parents usually support me through things, even if they do not understand what I am trying to do. I may not have made it to the IITs or NITs (the formal definition of a successful kid in general in India) but I still love what I do and at least have a clear vision of what exactly I want to do in my life. I am not like those uptight children whose sole aim in life is to get a college degree to get a good job to get a good salary.
Also what's up with using "Asian" to describe only Chinese people, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and many other other countries with a lot different cultural background also comprise Asia.
In general, Westerners don't colloquially classify rough ethnic groups by strict continent. Asian means East Asian and South East Asian (people with slanty eyes)
India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc. possess "Indians" or national identity (Pakistani, etc.)
Iran, Iraq, Jordan, etc. possess "Middle-Easterners"
Other areas are usually called by national affiliation (Kyrgistan, Tajikistan, etc.) are currently undecided and usually just called by national identity.
(I always found it unusual that folks from India wanted to be identified as "Asian" when that's not the colloquial meaning of the classification).
For one, it creates a limited view of what "success" is and the means to achieve it. My parents had a big fixation on "financial stability" and pushed that on my sister and me. That meant a lot of careers weren't even considered, and music and any other extra-curricular activities were just to make you seem more "rounded".
Growing up I would always be compared to other people. To my sister (she was more the straight-A student, I was the "if this doesn't interest me who cares" type), to other chinese friends. I think it's interesting to fast forward 10 years later and see what effect if any it had on us. The funny thing is that we are all across the board.
The "straight-A, 1600 SAT score student that went to Harvard" that we were always compared to? Most just ended up in successful professions like doctor or lawyer (and I became an engineer haha). Just like their less strict, "western" counter-parts. Nothing against hard work and success, but the way my mom would go on about it back then it was like they were about to win the nobel prize or something and I was gonna be a deadbeat in the streets. The funny thing is my mom looks at it now and realizes how absurd it kind of was.
Some of my friends were not as lucky, and I had a few completely shutdown/rebel in college because they realized they didn't want to live their life dictated by parents or took advantage of their freedom in an unhealthy way. I think there are some good things to take away from this, but "superior"? Please.
Wow, I wrote a lot haha.