Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Work ethic is different than having the most rigorous course load. My daughter was an average student. Nothing I could do could change that, except for spending tons of money in tutors and we did for a little, but it added stress and she only marginally improved. Terrible test taker.

My daughter has strengths that outweigh a rigorous course load any day. She is punctual, articulate, speaks well with adults, and takes her job seriously and with pride. She takes care of her appearance. She is courteous to all. She is not lazy and very driven. Just because she didn’t take AP classes means nothing about work ethic or the drive to succeed.

Why do you think this is incompatiable with being an academic high achiever?

It is not that is incompatible, but straight A’s in the highest classes is not a guarantee for success either. Don’t we all know the real-estate agent or salesperson who barely made it through high school and are very successful now?

Maybe that's the difference. I don't want my kids to grow up to real estate agent or salesperson no matter how successful they maybe.

Oof. Your poor kids!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this as a comment on another thread, but I think it's odd how many posters here are averse to pushing their kid and having them develop an amazing work ethic (the #1 key to success!) all because they're worried that they'll harm their fragile snowflake's "mental health."


I demand that my kid (who is of fairly average intelligence -- 110 IQ) take the most rigorous classes offered at their school (a "W" school), try their best to get straight As (so far successful except for 1 B sophomore year), participate in a sport, play an instrument, work a (crappy, minimum wage) summer job, and be active in community service. DC doesn't want to do any of this (they are naturally very lazy), but I push them academically and extracurricularly because it forms a well-rounded human being. Not for the sake of college admissions, not for the sake of impressing an AO, but for the sake of developing a work ethic that'll launch them into success in college and beyond. Too many Americans these days lack a strong work ethic.

And for some reason, the parents on here think that all of this will destroy my kid's mental health. The best thing you can do for your kid's mental health is to build grit and resilience, as well as normalize failure. That's why I demand that my kid try their best at activities that are naturally outside of their comfort zone. It seems as though this is a common approach to successful and well-rounded kids; the ones who are the healthiest and happiest in DC's friend group are the ones who are pushed by their parents to do things outside of their comfort zone while normalizing failure and not being the best at everything you do. And the ones in DC's friend group with the most mental health issues are the ones with coddling parents who try to shelter their kid from every potential failure while not pushing them to step outside of their comfort zone.

With this language, it's clear you aren't interested in answers, but in telling parents how they are wrong. Might be better to just rephrase it.

Also, extracurricularly is not a word.

Right? This is so obviously asked in bad faith. Like there's no middle ground between making your kid do the hardest everything and just letting them do whatever they want.

OP here. Not asking this in bad faith, genuinely curious.

What do you mean "middle ground?" Can you give me a few examples of what you mean by middle ground? I think I've taken a few with my own kid (letting them choose their own instrument but still requiring that they play one, letting them switch sports when they got to high school). But that middle ground still requires pushing.

Anonymous wrote:Forcing your kid into the activities you’ve decided are good for them is just a recipe for breeding resentment.

My kid isn’t interested in playing sports. Should we force her? She would rather sing, draw, paint, dance, and act. She is in activities that center around those interests.

If a kid has no natural musical talent or interest in playing an instrument, it’s pointless to force it.

You seem to want to create a robot, not a person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because my kids were not receptive to "pushing" and it backfired. Maybe your kids will practice the instrument but, mine didn't when they didn't want to play anymore. It was a huge waste of time and money. So that's one reason. Second I realized that my kids are not mini-mes and should have autonomy to chose what they want to do. And I want a relationship with them when they are older.

OP here. My kid was originally not receptive to pushing, but with appropriate punishments for not responding to my pushing (ie: taking away phone privileges, not letting them take Driver's Ed, not letting them meet up with friends on weekends, and the occasionally yelling and fighting), they became receptive. And, IME, so will 99% of kids (barring a learning disorder). Kids WILL have to be receptive if their social life is on the line.

God help any of your kids if they have a learning disorder---they would likely be a huge disappointment to you and you would not know how to deal.

Have no desire to be a "tiger parent". I'd like my kids to hit adulthood and not hate me, not wish their life was different; I want them to be happy. So forcing a kid to practice an instrument or loose their phone or not let them drive seems so controlling and unhealthy. Your kid will likely grow up and want to do things differently for their own family, but may not due to family pressures. Or they might have depression and anxiety thanks to this upbringing

OP here -- I know they won't because they know how to take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming me for all of their problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Work ethic is different than having the most rigorous course load. My daughter was an average student. Nothing I could do could change that, except for spending tons of money in tutors and we did for a little, but it added stress and she only marginally improved. Terrible test taker.

My daughter has strengths that outweigh a rigorous course load any day. She is punctual, articulate, speaks well with adults, and takes her job seriously and with pride. She takes care of her appearance. She is courteous to all. She is not lazy and very driven. Just because she didn’t take AP classes means nothing about work ethic or the drive to succeed.

Why do you think this is incompatiable with being an academic high achiever?

It is not that is incompatible, but straight A’s in the highest classes is not a guarantee for success either. Don’t we all know the real-estate agent or salesperson who barely made it through high school and are very successful now?

Maybe that's the difference. I don't want my kids to grow up to real estate agent or salesperson no matter how successful they maybe.

NP. Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Work ethic is different than having the most rigorous course load. My daughter was an average student. Nothing I could do could change that, except for spending tons of money in tutors and we did for a little, but it added stress and she only marginally improved. Terrible test taker.

My daughter has strengths that outweigh a rigorous course load any day. She is punctual, articulate, speaks well with adults, and takes her job seriously and with pride. She takes care of her appearance. She is courteous to all. She is not lazy and very driven. Just because she didn’t take AP classes means nothing about work ethic or the drive to succeed.

Why do you think this is incompatiable with being an academic high achiever?

It is not that is incompatible, but straight A’s in the highest classes is not a guarantee for success either. Don’t we all know the real-estate agent or salesperson who barely made it through high school and are very successful now?

Maybe that's the difference. I don't want my kids to grow up to real estate agent or salesperson no matter how successful they maybe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because my kids were not receptive to "pushing" and it backfired. Maybe your kids will practice the instrument but, mine didn't when they didn't want to play anymore. It was a huge waste of time and money. So that's one reason. Second I realized that my kids are not mini-mes and should have autonomy to chose what they want to do. And I want a relationship with them when they are older.

OP here. My kid was originally not receptive to pushing, but with appropriate punishments for not responding to my pushing (ie: taking away phone privileges, not letting them take Driver's Ed, not letting them meet up with friends on weekends, and the occasionally yelling and fighting), they became receptive. And, IME, so will 99% of kids (barring a learning disorder). Kids WILL have to be receptive if their social life is on the line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have four adult children of well above average intelligence and privilege. I did have high expectations of them, and in retrospect they were too high. My expectations didn't put their "mental health" at risk, but it did put our relationship at risk. I know what you're thinking -- that's a risk worth taking, because they'll thank you for pushing them when they're adults -- but you need to recognize that there's a thin line between pushing and pushing too hard.

If you push too hard, and your kid doesn't rise to your expectations, they're still likely to end up just fine as adults generally and mental health wise, but not think very well of you as a parent have a strained relationship with you. I'm lucky that that hasn't happened with me, but it easily could have, and it did happen with a lot my kids' friends and their parents.

Your kid is still young, OP. With the benefit of hindsight, I can tell you that most of things that you have outlined in your litany of expectations mean very little to adult success and happiness in the long run. Your strategy is high risk for low reward.

Of course, I don't expect that you'll actually listen to my advice or any of the other sound advice being offered here. Clearly, that's not why you're here.

OP here. Okay, so there's a thin line between pushing and pushing too hard. Where do you think that line is? I don't think I'm anywhere close to it, at least compared to the parents around me (travel sports parents are the most aggressive when it comes to pushing IME). But how did you realize that you pushed too hard instead of appropriately? Did your own kids tell you? IMO kids are not the best judges of whether our parenting was appropriate or not.

When you're fighting with your kid most of the time. When your relationship is one of constant conflict (or the threat of conflict or punishment). When your kid starts acting out, exhibiting symptoms of anxiety, self-harm, stress, depression. Kids find ways to tell you they are hurting -- when you can't hear them or aren't listening, you're pushing too hard. When you are doing all of the motivating with external rewards and punishments, and none of it is really coming from your kid. When your kid feels like your love and approval are conditional on them being a high achiever. When their goals are really just your goals. The thing is, you won't necessarily know if you were pushing too hard (or not enough, or in the wrong direction, or in the wrong way) in the moment. That's not how parenting works. You'll find out when your kid leaves home.

OP here. Right, we don't really know if what we're doing is correct. All we can go off of are our instincts and the results of the kids around us, which both show that pushing has more benefits than negatives.

kids are people, not “results.”

Kids have results. Anyone who denies this is wrong.