On Educational Success and Parenting or What Poplin and (Especially) Chua Got Wrong
I am an excellent (written) test-taker. I am good at educated guessing. I am (or used to be at least) also really good at memorizing. I educated-guessed my way through the final exam of a biology course for which I had skipped almost all the classes to score a B. I could stay up the night (or two nights in a row) before an organic chemistry exam and score 100%. I earned a scholarship coming to Hopkins, because I was assumed to be one of the best incoming grad students, based on my test scores. After my entrance exams, I was told that I could pick my own grad courses because I probably wouldn't learn anything from them anyhow.
I'm not saying this to brag, but to make a point, because the fact of the matter is that I'm a terrible lab experimentalist. I'm horrible at doing experimental science, because all of the knowledge I had beforehand was memorized; I was never taught how to solve real world chemistry problems in a methodical way, via observation, hypothesis, experiment, and theory. I feel like I am only just learning these things now after many wasted years in grad school.
I'm sure it's the same in many other fields. I can memorize thousands of dates for events, but this does not mean that I really understand why the dates are important in history or that I could make a movie somewhat accurately portraying life in a given time period. One can know all the theory behind the color wheel and one-point perspective, but this doesn't mean he or she can paint. I've earned very good scores in all of the eleven or so language courses I've finished, yet I am not fluent in a single one of them. One can ace the SAT English section and be an awful writer.
True learning is not memorization. Nor is it high scoring in standardized tests.
I should say here that I do not think that testing is worthless. It is important to learn to memorize by repetition and drills. It is known that such learning frees one up to use other regions of the brain for problem solving skills. My point is that testing alone should not be the sole determinant of educational success.
And this is one of my major problems with both Poplin's research and Chua's parenting methods - I think they have a poor definition of academic success.
Despite publishing a paper in the 80s about how social science studies should be more qualitative than quantitative, Poplin's own study, which I discussed in my last entry, judges teachers based on how well students scored on standardized tests. I see this as problematic, though perhaps it is less of an issue for her study, because she only looked at math and English teachers. Math and English (grammar, at least) are more fact-based subjects.
But having taught no small amount of science classes, it is obvious to me that test results are little indication of whether one understands the bigger picture. The students almost always just memorize. After the test, they A) forget almost everything and B) miss the fundamental and general principles in their memorization of the specific cases. While in my case, I did manage to come away with the fundamentals of organic chemistry theory when in college, I did not also learn how to apply that theory in the real world at all.
As I made clear in my previous entry, I strongly agree with Poplin on the need for and benefit of strictness in the classroom; however, it is with her other findings about traditional teaching methods being better that I take issue. I would agree that traditional methods lead to the best test results - hers are not the only studies overwhelmingly showing this - but I disagree that test results reveal the best students.
Chua makes all the same errors (in addition to being a hypocrite, in my opinion, which I'll note at the end). She opens her Wall Street Journal article by defining this idea of success as academic - "math whizzes" and "musical prodigies" she gives as examples. She claims that she never allowed her children to get any grade less than an A or fail to be the #1 student in any subject - except for gym or drama. She forced her children to play the "more academic" piano and violin and forbade them to play any other instruments. She forbade them to perform in plays.
A's and the "#1 student" label are based on test scores, which again say little about how successful her children will be in the real world. Playing the violin extremely well does not mean that one will be a great composer or create musical art. Being #1 in science doesn't mean that one will make grand scientific discoveries. And what is wrong with other instruments outside of piano or violin? What is wrong with drama? If Chua really cared more about hard work and not giving up, as she claims, why could one not show hard work in gym or drama class or playing the flute?
Another problem is that children are different; everyone learns in different ways and at different rates. For some, test scores may well be a good indication of their later success; for me, it certainly was not. It may be that some children can be insulted by their parents - such as being called "garbage" - and not take it literally, not letting it affect them in a negative way, instead letting it motivate them to work harder. But countless studies have shown that insulting one's children often does have lasting negative psychological effects. Assuming that all children are the same is risky and stupid.
Chua's own daughters were also very different. One was very obedient and easy to raise; the other was very rebellious. The second daughter also learned piano more slowly than the first. When Chua's husband tried to point this out to her, she responded,Oh no, not this! "Everyone is special in their special own way. Even losers are special in their own special way."
But there's a huge difference between "celebrating mediocrity" and name-calling the ones producing the mediocre!
As in almost everything I argue about here on this blog, I think that this boils down to the importance of avoiding of extremes. Chua correctly has noted a major flaw in the extreme parenting so typical in America of coddling our children and losing our appreciation of hard work and high quality work. But she has gone off to the other extreme.
I find it revealing that in a response written by Chua's oldest daughter, while she claims to be thankful for her mother's parenting, she also mentions how much her Western father and school friends helped her to think for herself and find encouragement. In other words, her father and her friends balanced out her influences.
Having said all this about Chua, it's hard to know how she really is, because when she or her children are questioned about her more offensive comments, she and they often claim that it was exaggerated to be humorous or tongue-in-cheek. She has even recanted some of her more outrageous examples, toning them down so they don't appear quite as bad. Reading some of her "recants", I think she makes very good points, the ones I noted in my previous post. She even acknowledges in one of them that "grades or achievement [are not] ultimately what Chinese parenting... is really about."
Even so, there is no justification in my mind for ever calling children "fatty" or "garbage". Calling one "lazy", is one thing, because it has to do with the child's effort and action, but calling a child "garbage" is about the child's value, and I frankly find that disgusting. Just because Chua's children happened to have come out ok doesn't justify her methods. Not at all to stereotype all Asian parents, I note there are plenty of instances where Asian children struggle later in life because of how they were raised, feeling depression at never being good enough for their parents. Recent studies have shown that the suicide rate among Asian-Americans is vastly higher than that of other people groups and climbing. At Cornell University, they even formed a special task force to deal with this growing problem. (I once spoke with an Asian-American student in Organic Chemistry who told me that he could not go back home because he was failing Organic Chemistry and that he hadn't slept or eaten in days because of his depression, so I've seen it personally.)
To be fair, there are plenty of cases where children from Western families have major issues due to how they were raised. My point is that extremes should be avoided. Discipline is good; lack of discipline is not, but neither is abuse.
Finally, Chua thinks herself funny and justifies everything by the fact that her kids turned out ok and that she believed in her children and wanted the best for them,... which would be great, but I don't believe her. To me, her choices for what she would and wouldn't allow her children to excel at imply that she sees her children as an extension of herself. In other words, she is living through her children, not picking what is best for them but rather what is best for (or preferred by) her. She also argues that "Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything." This comes through multiple places elsewhere in her writing, statements about failing children "disgracing" their parents or successful children making parents feel "proud" about their own parenting. I find this utterly selfish at worst and certainly not "wanting the best for the children." (It's the same warped idea of love that our modern culture has in the area of romance really....)
An example from her book that shows this selfishness clearly is the "birthday card" incident. On Chua's birthday, one of her daughters made a card for her in about 30 seconds and gave it to her. Now, certainly, 30 seconds is not much effort to put into a card for someone you care about. (The grown daughter herself admitted that she did not work as hard as she should have on the card.) Chua rejected the card from her daughter. She claims that it was because she wanted her children to never settle for mediocre work. But listen to what she actually said:I don't want this. I deserve better than this, so I reject this.
Her anger was not really about her child's laziness; it was about her pride being hurt.
Again, Western parenting has the same problem of hypocritical love; it just expresses it in different ways. If parents - Eastern or Western - truly strive to do the best for their children, even when their children complain, this is good. But abuse and unhealthy expectations are never good, nor are lack of discipline and ignorance of quality.
I'm not saying this to brag, but to make a point, because the fact of the matter is that I'm a terrible lab experimentalist. I'm horrible at doing experimental science, because all of the knowledge I had beforehand was memorized; I was never taught how to solve real world chemistry problems in a methodical way, via observation, hypothesis, experiment, and theory. I feel like I am only just learning these things now after many wasted years in grad school.
I'm sure it's the same in many other fields. I can memorize thousands of dates for events, but this does not mean that I really understand why the dates are important in history or that I could make a movie somewhat accurately portraying life in a given time period. One can know all the theory behind the color wheel and one-point perspective, but this doesn't mean he or she can paint. I've earned very good scores in all of the eleven or so language courses I've finished, yet I am not fluent in a single one of them. One can ace the SAT English section and be an awful writer.
True learning is not memorization. Nor is it high scoring in standardized tests.
I should say here that I do not think that testing is worthless. It is important to learn to memorize by repetition and drills. It is known that such learning frees one up to use other regions of the brain for problem solving skills. My point is that testing alone should not be the sole determinant of educational success.
And this is one of my major problems with both Poplin's research and Chua's parenting methods - I think they have a poor definition of academic success.
Despite publishing a paper in the 80s about how social science studies should be more qualitative than quantitative, Poplin's own study, which I discussed in my last entry, judges teachers based on how well students scored on standardized tests. I see this as problematic, though perhaps it is less of an issue for her study, because she only looked at math and English teachers. Math and English (grammar, at least) are more fact-based subjects.
But having taught no small amount of science classes, it is obvious to me that test results are little indication of whether one understands the bigger picture. The students almost always just memorize. After the test, they A) forget almost everything and B) miss the fundamental and general principles in their memorization of the specific cases. While in my case, I did manage to come away with the fundamentals of organic chemistry theory when in college, I did not also learn how to apply that theory in the real world at all.
As I made clear in my previous entry, I strongly agree with Poplin on the need for and benefit of strictness in the classroom; however, it is with her other findings about traditional teaching methods being better that I take issue. I would agree that traditional methods lead to the best test results - hers are not the only studies overwhelmingly showing this - but I disagree that test results reveal the best students.
Chua makes all the same errors (in addition to being a hypocrite, in my opinion, which I'll note at the end). She opens her Wall Street Journal article by defining this idea of success as academic - "math whizzes" and "musical prodigies" she gives as examples. She claims that she never allowed her children to get any grade less than an A or fail to be the #1 student in any subject - except for gym or drama. She forced her children to play the "more academic" piano and violin and forbade them to play any other instruments. She forbade them to perform in plays.
A's and the "#1 student" label are based on test scores, which again say little about how successful her children will be in the real world. Playing the violin extremely well does not mean that one will be a great composer or create musical art. Being #1 in science doesn't mean that one will make grand scientific discoveries. And what is wrong with other instruments outside of piano or violin? What is wrong with drama? If Chua really cared more about hard work and not giving up, as she claims, why could one not show hard work in gym or drama class or playing the flute?
Another problem is that children are different; everyone learns in different ways and at different rates. For some, test scores may well be a good indication of their later success; for me, it certainly was not. It may be that some children can be insulted by their parents - such as being called "garbage" - and not take it literally, not letting it affect them in a negative way, instead letting it motivate them to work harder. But countless studies have shown that insulting one's children often does have lasting negative psychological effects. Assuming that all children are the same is risky and stupid.
Chua's own daughters were also very different. One was very obedient and easy to raise; the other was very rebellious. The second daughter also learned piano more slowly than the first. When Chua's husband tried to point this out to her, she responded,Oh no, not this! "Everyone is special in their special own way. Even losers are special in their own special way."
But there's a huge difference between "celebrating mediocrity" and name-calling the ones producing the mediocre!
As in almost everything I argue about here on this blog, I think that this boils down to the importance of avoiding of extremes. Chua correctly has noted a major flaw in the extreme parenting so typical in America of coddling our children and losing our appreciation of hard work and high quality work. But she has gone off to the other extreme.
I find it revealing that in a response written by Chua's oldest daughter, while she claims to be thankful for her mother's parenting, she also mentions how much her Western father and school friends helped her to think for herself and find encouragement. In other words, her father and her friends balanced out her influences.
Having said all this about Chua, it's hard to know how she really is, because when she or her children are questioned about her more offensive comments, she and they often claim that it was exaggerated to be humorous or tongue-in-cheek. She has even recanted some of her more outrageous examples, toning them down so they don't appear quite as bad. Reading some of her "recants", I think she makes very good points, the ones I noted in my previous post. She even acknowledges in one of them that "grades or achievement [are not] ultimately what Chinese parenting... is really about."
Even so, there is no justification in my mind for ever calling children "fatty" or "garbage". Calling one "lazy", is one thing, because it has to do with the child's effort and action, but calling a child "garbage" is about the child's value, and I frankly find that disgusting. Just because Chua's children happened to have come out ok doesn't justify her methods. Not at all to stereotype all Asian parents, I note there are plenty of instances where Asian children struggle later in life because of how they were raised, feeling depression at never being good enough for their parents. Recent studies have shown that the suicide rate among Asian-Americans is vastly higher than that of other people groups and climbing. At Cornell University, they even formed a special task force to deal with this growing problem. (I once spoke with an Asian-American student in Organic Chemistry who told me that he could not go back home because he was failing Organic Chemistry and that he hadn't slept or eaten in days because of his depression, so I've seen it personally.)
To be fair, there are plenty of cases where children from Western families have major issues due to how they were raised. My point is that extremes should be avoided. Discipline is good; lack of discipline is not, but neither is abuse.
Finally, Chua thinks herself funny and justifies everything by the fact that her kids turned out ok and that she believed in her children and wanted the best for them,... which would be great, but I don't believe her. To me, her choices for what she would and wouldn't allow her children to excel at imply that she sees her children as an extension of herself. In other words, she is living through her children, not picking what is best for them but rather what is best for (or preferred by) her. She also argues that "Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything." This comes through multiple places elsewhere in her writing, statements about failing children "disgracing" their parents or successful children making parents feel "proud" about their own parenting. I find this utterly selfish at worst and certainly not "wanting the best for the children." (It's the same warped idea of love that our modern culture has in the area of romance really....)
An example from her book that shows this selfishness clearly is the "birthday card" incident. On Chua's birthday, one of her daughters made a card for her in about 30 seconds and gave it to her. Now, certainly, 30 seconds is not much effort to put into a card for someone you care about. (The grown daughter herself admitted that she did not work as hard as she should have on the card.) Chua rejected the card from her daughter. She claims that it was because she wanted her children to never settle for mediocre work. But listen to what she actually said:I don't want this. I deserve better than this, so I reject this.
Her anger was not really about her child's laziness; it was about her pride being hurt.
Again, Western parenting has the same problem of hypocritical love; it just expresses it in different ways. If parents - Eastern or Western - truly strive to do the best for their children, even when their children complain, this is good. But abuse and unhealthy expectations are never good, nor are lack of discipline and ignorance of quality.