A couple of weeks ago I read Amy Chau's blog post on WSJ.com. Since then I have been following the conversation and controversy around it.
There are pros and cons to both approaches that Chau discusses, but neither is likely optimal. While the laser focus and pressure of the Chinese approach builds strong academic skills, it is at the expense of building on natural strengths, creativity, innovation, and social and leadership skills. What she terms the "Western Approach" (I call it the West Coast feelings-based douche-bag approach), where children are allowed to pursue (or not pursue) whatever they want and simple effort is celebrated, leads to a lack of discipline, fortitude, and key academic skills, but it promotes creativity, innovation, and social and leadership skills. To over-simplify it, the "Chinese mom" approach creates computer-like drones and the "Western Approach" leads to weakness in character and skills.
To me, the correct approach is essentially in the middle of those extremes. In my opinion, a child should be allowed to explore interests, but it is the parent's job to push them when they see a strong talent and propensity. While effort should be encouraged, it should not be celebrateD in and of itself. Only success should be celebrated and rewarded. A child should be free to shape their own path, but a parent must reinforce and strengthen them along the way. Most children require time to mature before they can tap into self-motivation, which is why it is sometimes necessary to push them along the way.
The "Chinese Approach" treats children like clay - completely malleable and you can make what you want from them. The "Western Approach" treats them like a flower - given time, they will blossom on their own. The approach I am advocating is like building a ski-slope - the hill is natural, but someone had to find it, recognize the potential, and clear the trees.
Recent Comments