
The Last of the Tiger Parents - ilamont
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/opinion/sunday/asian-american-tiger-parents.html
======
glangdale
From my experience, Tiger Parenting is a very effective way of propelling
people through standardized testing and competitive exams/admissions. I think
it tends to stop working once there is not a clearly delineated pathway to
achievement - for example in independent research.

It's absurd to think that _no-one_ who came up with a Tiger Parent philosophy
won't be a good researcher or independently creative, but there does seem to
be a rapid winnowing of people who were previously overperforming on tests and
'routine intellectual work'.

~~~
gsam
As a counterpoint, I would like to say that a lot of research still is
'routine intellectual work'. Movers and shakers are rare and far apart. The
vast majority of academia are collectively and slowly boiling over problems,
rather than taking bold and independent strives.

~~~
csa
> As a counterpoint, I would like to say that a lot of research still is
> 'routine intellectual work'. Movers and shakers are rare and far apart.

While this is very true, the "movers and shakers" are the ones who set the
standard of a research culture. Frankly, that's why the US has a major
research advantage over most (probably all) countries that strongly embrace
tiger parenting.

------
c-smile
There are alternatives to Tiger Parenting …

I had two friends at school and met exactly same situation visiting their
families one day. We were given some homework to do...

Jewish family: Misha, you are so smart, why you cannot solve this exercise?

Russian family (same Tiger style): Vladimir, why you cannot solve this
exercise, why you are so lazy?

I do remember that the comparison impressed me - parenthood is an art of
creating proper motivations really.

------
manfredo
I'm interested in what really qualifies as "Tiger Parenting", especially over
whether my childhood counts as tiger parenting:

I don't remember elementary school that much. I remember getting my homework
done quick because I could play the N64 or Xbox when my homework was done.
Maybe that instilled in me the notion that academics come first. I also
remember taking math quizzes and being pretty good at them in elementary
school. It was like a game to see if I could be the first one to finish and
still get 100%.

When I was in middle school and high school I was always aiming for As. Part
of it was because I was genuinely interested and motivated to learn. More
cynically, if I failed (or was even below average) academically it would be
big blow to my sense of self-worth. Also because I desired the status and
money that going to a good university would bring.

That said, I don't really think my parents ever strictly enforced academic
commitment. Sure, I got As, but I also spent a ton of time playing video
games, hanging out with friends, etc. I didn't have a bed time - I distinctly
remember binging through a whole season of Dexter on a school night once. When
my parents found a beer bottle tucked away in a closet (damn friends couldn't
clean up for shit) they were more mad that I got caught rather than that my
friends and I experimented with alcohol. I'd speculate that if I started
getting mostly Bs or Cs they'd probably crack down on recreational time, but
this was something that neither I nor my sister ever put to the test.

I don't want this to sound self-congratulatory, but I really think in
retrospect my childhood was a great outcome. I had academic success because my
parents instilled the principles in me at a young age, and by late childhood
or young adulthood I was self motivated academically. Thus, in high school I
was free to balance school and social life myself any my parents trusted me to
get good grades without much input on their part.

It's also the kind of childhood I'd want to pass on to my kids. I'd want to
instill in them the value of academic and professional success, but want them
to be self motivated to achieve those goals beyond early childhood years.

~~~
dorchadas
This is pretty much exactly my situation, and comparing it to a kid a year
younger than me (and his siblings), as well as a few others I know, I'd say it
definitely wasn't tiger parenting.

I worked to get good grades for myself, not because my parents really pushed
me to. They certainly encouraged and helped, but that was it. I was very
introverted my first few years of high school (did have online friends through
games, and friends in real life, but rarely stayed overnight with them, etc)
but my parents pushed me to get out of that even. I didn't do much studying,
either (bit me in the ass in college tho because I didn't know how to study
well lol), and didn't have a bedtime.

Now, my brother wasn't as motivated to do good as I was, even though he could.
And my parents didn't push him either. They let him have his friends over
every weekend and get Bs and such. I'm really really glad I had that kind of
upbringing when comparing it to the other kid who had to have straight As, had
over 1000 volunteer hours a year, did Tae Kwan Do and several other
extracurriculars (his parents wanted him and siblings to go to Naval
Academy;they all did end up going). There were times his life seemed awful,
even tho he hung out with friends a lot and had fun... His siblings both had
it worse off, and it showed in how they interacted with people (i.e. Grades
decided worth, no real social skills, etc etc)

------
sand500
This is something I sometimes think about. My parents were pretty strict and
emphasized education but were not "tiger parent" strict. I did pretty well in
school but not "straight-A valedictorian" well. I'm out of college now with a
job at the big 5 but I wonder where I would be had I studied harder in school
and gotten into a better college. And would I be "happier"?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
My parents were divorced and, anyways, completely hands off when it came to my
sister’s and my education. I got a PhD, worked for research labs, and so on;
my sister is a waitress and a bartender.

There is some nature to consider, not just nuture, I guess.

~~~
haskellandchill
That’s a nice story. Thanks for sharing.

------
rayiner
> When I became a parent, I felt the wonder and uncertainty that accompany the
> awesome responsibility of fatherhood. But I was absolutely sure of one
> thing: The childhood I devise for my two young daughters will look nothing
> like mine. They will feel valued and supported. They will know home as a
> place of joy and fun. They will never wonder whether their father’s love is
> conditioned on an unblemished report card.

I wonder if that does your kids or anyone else a favor. As someone in position
similar to the author, I've chosen to Tiger parent my kids. As my Asian
immigrant parents understood: money is really important. It matters so much
that financial stress is a leading cause of divorce and people die because
they don't have the money for proper healthcare. I don't want my kids to
suffer for lack of money. Nor do I want them to feel like they can have their
cake and eat it too because they can depend on their parents' money.

There's also a question of whether it helps anyone else. Our world is facing
immense challenges. Many of the things cans we've been kicking down the road
for these past decades are going to pile up on the generation to come. Their
generation needs people slaving away in labs or in front of computers. That
need might be existential. Your kids shouldn't get a pass on that just because
they are privileged and their parents were well-off enough that they could be
comfortable without necessarily striving.

~~~
FruityFarm
Is it really either/or? Can't parenting utilize both styles?

~~~
rayiner
There is a spectrum, of course. But at the end of the day, you have concrete
choices to make. When picking classes for my five year old daughter's summer
school, I can check the box for "Disney Princess" dancing or "Little
Engineers."

~~~
pvg
Out of curiosity, which one do you think your daughter would pick?

~~~
rayiner
If I had asked her (this was last year), she would've chosen Princess dance.
But I didn't (because she's five and what does she know) and signed her up for
Little Engineers (and Little Chemist and the math classes, etc.) and she loved
it. This year, I signed her up for Princess Dance the first week, then Little
Engineers one of the other weeks. She enjoyed Princess dance, but asked if I
had signed her up for Little Engineers because she was looking forward to
that.

------
MrTonyD
This seems like a pretty convincing refutation of the effectiveness of the
"tiger mom" philosophy: [http://sci-
hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...](http://sci-
hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915301227)

------
ken47
I was fine with this article until he tried to bring all Asian Americans into
it. Surprise surprise, but not all high-performing Asian Americans grew up
under the caricature of Asian parenting the author presents throughout the
article.

------
cornholio
Coercion is irrelevant. The differentiator is valuing education and viewing it
as the sole way for social mobility. Once a child internalizes this world view
as fair and implacable, she will chose to do well in school, just as easily as
she will breathe. The endlessly adaptable blank mind of the young Homo Sapiens
will have latched on to the rules of the tribe in which they have been born,
and remain set for life.

~~~
Avshalom
Rebellion against the status quo has an equally rich academic tradition.
"Education" in the abstract doesn't prefer one view over the other.

Further education is in no way a guaranteed path to success: I have two BS
degrees Physics and Geology with math and CS minors, and yet I am a stock boy
at Target.

Nothing is a path to anything. We of course hear from the successful children
of "tiger moms" but how many stories in the last 50 years do you remember with
the headline "my mother demanded everything and I am a fork lift operator at
an industrial door warehouse" and yet
[https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58ff7f40e4b0c46f0782a5b6](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58ff7f40e4b0c46f0782a5b6)
Asian Americans are statistically poorer than most...

~~~
learc83
>Asian Americans are statistically poorer than most...

Not only is that untrue, it's the exact opposite of the truth.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income)

~~~
Avshalom
Sorry "Asians Americans in the largest city in the country".

~~~
learc83
Percent living below the povery line in 1 city has more to do with the
geographical distribution of immigrants from poor countries than it does with
anything else.

Poor Asian immigrants are just more likely to settle in NYC.

~~~
Avshalom
Oh yeah sure because NYC is definitely the cheapest city to immigrate to...

~~~
learc83
Poor immigrants in NYC often share housing with far more people than native
born Americans would tolerate. How do you think all those people making below
the poverty line afford to live there?

They move there because of the existing immigrant communities already in
place.

3/4 of Asian Americans in NYC are immigrants.

~~~
Avshalom
which part of what you just said makes you feel comfortable arguing against
immigrant poverty?

~~~
learc83
You're gonna need to restate that because I'm not really sure what you're
trying to say.

~~~
Avshalom
you seem to have claimed that people immigrating from Asia move to NYC because
it's cheap but at the same time you claim it's cheap because they are willing
to live umpteen to a room, vs. literally any other city in the country where
it's a fraction of the price per sq ft.

I am claiming that if one of the most populous cities in the country/world
sees a high degree of poverty in a demographic it might be because that
demographic has a high degree of poverty.

~~~
learc83
No. I'm saying they move there because of the existing communities in place,
and they live in cramped condtions in order to afford it.

>I am claiming that if one of the most populous cities in the country/world
sees a high degree of poverty in a demographic it might be because that
demographic has a high degree of poverty.

You could actually look at the overall numbers though instead of extrapolating
from a non-random sample.

You'd find that Asian Americans are less likely to live in poverty than than
any other minority group, and even less likely than the general population.

Clearly NYC is an anomaly. That anomaly is caused by disproportionately large
number of poor Asian immigrants.

The only thing this demonstrates is that people from Asian countries poorer
than the US disproportionately move to NYC. It isn't in any way useful in a
discussion on Asian parenting methods or the benefits of education.

~~~
Avshalom
and why should we believe that "living in NYC" should select for "under
achieving children" or "not tiger moms"?

also why is "Asian countries poorer than the US" so easily dismiss-able for
purposes of parenting when almost all "Asian Countries" are poorer than the
US?

~~~
learc83
Looking at the income of first generation immigrants in relation to the income
of the general population tells you absolutely nothing about the merits of the
parenting methods of those immigrants.

If you don't understand why that is the case, there really isn't much point in
continuing this.

------
spyckie2
As a second generation Asian American who is living in Hong Kong, this article
(and most discussions about tiger parents) sounds like the writer has a blind
spot - specifically, he wonders if he will emulate tiger parents without any
understanding of the cultural values that cause tiger parents to be that way.

In Asian culture, obedience, order, and hierarchy are the values that shape
society. Western cultures value individualism, but in Asian cultures, you are
part of a unit or group, be it family, department or otherwise. This unit has
a clear head/leader (parents or boss) who makes decisions for the entire unit
with everyone else expected to obediently follow, and this obedience and
hierarchy that makes the unit successful is seen as the highest moral standard
in Confucian philosophy. However, the head must also be responsible to the
subordinates, sacrificing for the subordinates what the subordinates do for
the head. If the head acts in this way, he is morally right and the
subordinates' obedience is a reciprocation or agreement of a mutually moral
relationship.

See
[http://hua.umf.maine.edu/Reading_Revolutions/Confucius.html](http://hua.umf.maine.edu/Reading_Revolutions/Confucius.html)
for a quick summary.

If you're a poor Asian immigrant strategizing how to get your family ahead,
you will think about it from the perspective of the family unit, ignoring the
individual. The generalized strategy would be for the parents to sacrifice
themselves to push the kids as much as possible. In Confucian philosophy, the
head is 'moral' in beating the kids into studying because they fulfill their
responsibility to the kids in providing opportunities for a better life, and
the subordinates, (kids) to reciprocate morality, should obediently follow.

Unfortunately, the kids grow up westernized. Confucian philosophy works
because the moral obedience and obligation to the unit gets so deeply
ingrained, it defines your satisfaction and value system on a deeper,
instinctual level. You can get pushed to do things you wouldn't want to do as
an individual because you get value out of it elsewhere in a moral or social
context. However, if there is no carrot because instead of Confucian values of
the unit, western values of individualism is instilled, then there is a
problem - from the kid's point of view, it's all suffering. Even worse, it's a
direct affront to what society is teaching should be valued (independence and
autonomy), and it creates deep feelings of your parents 'being wrong' in asian
american kids, enough to be a widespread phenomenon.

2nd generation Asian American adults often feel slighted by their parents very
deeply beyond rationalism, and it's a moral wrong, a slight to the fundamental
rights of human beings - the right to be an individual. But the result is a
successful upper-middle class lifestyle, jumping multiple generations of
wealth accumulation in just one. This duality makes a lot of Asian American
adults at odds with themselves and their culture.

A lot of 2nd gen try to push while respecting individual feelings, but there's
too little fuel to go full tiger parent - you don't need to jump wealth gaps,
you value individualism too much, and most importantly, you just don't want
your kids to suffer as much as you did.

In this sense, the 2nd generation is similar to the 1st. The major motivation
for Asian immigrants was to have a better life, and for their family to not
suffer so much. Compared to starving, or being hunted down by communists, or
living in old open air houses with no ac or sanitation, what's a bit of forced
studying?

Contrary to the view of the article, I don't see modern Asian Americans as
regressing. I think we have the background and tools to combine the best parts
of both cultures - a little pushing to go beyond themselves, with the
empowerment that comes from western individual thought - to create a very
strong next generation in the future.

~~~
nexus2045
Well put, I definitely grew up with resentment of my parents ways, especially
when all the cool kids around me were partying and having fun and they told me
to go home for dinner, and I felt this really hampered my social skills which
weren't given enough activation energy to blossom.

------
docker_up
The author has the privilege to not have to raise his child the way he was,
because he is very successful and rich. Once you have economic wealth, you
reach higher and higher on the Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs. He and his
children have the privilege and luxury of pursuing the top echelon, which is
self-fulfillment. He doesn't have to force education down his children's
throats because they will inherit his and his wife's wealth. His children can
graduate from a city college and still be millionaires from their inheritance.

His parents didn't have that luxury, and most of us do not either. So it might
not have been pretty, but it did exactly the job that his parents wanted to
do. This is how families pull themselves out of the cycle of poverty, through
unapologetic adherence to top education and work ethic.

~~~
fzeroracer
I vehemently disagree for multiple reasons. I'll address them in order:

The first is that tiger parenting requires a large investment of a parent's
time to be successful. For those that are absolutely poor and barely surviving
they have little time nor energy to actively participate in their kid's
schooling.

The second is the factor of luck which I firmly believe is far more important.
My parents were the exact opposite of the parenting style in the OP because
they couldn't be. The only reason why I managed to escape the cycle of poverty
was due (un)lucky circumstances that allowed me to scrape by and survive
through college. Families don't pull themselves out of poverty through
adherence to education or work ethic. Not in America at least.

And finally there's also survivorship bias in play. We can say that tiger
parenting is successful because of successful people being raised in that
environment but we ignore the many people that committed suicide, burned out
or otherwise didn't make it as a result of such intense stress. On average
those exposed to this style tend to do worse.

~~~
zbentley
I want to agree with your position. I've seen some data about suicide rates
based on parenting strictness, and have anecdata of losing people due to
exactly this style of parenting. The tradeoffs some parents make when faced
with extreme poverty are sad. Hell, the fact that a modern industrialized
society has as many suffering people as ours does is sad.

But I don't think your refutations hold up. This will be a bit of a tome,
sorry.

> For those [parents] that are absolutely poor and barely surviving they have
> little time nor energy to actively participate in their kid's schooling.

That's true for a lot of people. Structural disadvantages are huge. But at the
same time, it's not true for large classes of deeply impoverished people. As
the author of TFA pointed out, [east] Asian immigrants are, by some metrics,
the poorest group of people in the New York area--and definitely severely
economically disadvantaged no matter what measurement you use. And yet the
academic performance of those groups--even in that area--continues to surpass
many others. Given how endemic poverty is among those demographics, I don't
think "it's not the poor kids doing super well in school" holds up; the
intersection must be large, and something must be materially different about
the practices of those folks in order to combat what, elsewhere in the
country/world, would be the multiple-generation-damning sentence of poverty.

> Families don't pull themselves out of poverty through adherence to education
> or work ethic.

That's anecdotal. In general, this is a dangerously politicized area. To argue
that families _do not_ , as a rule, pull themselves out of poverty flies in
the face of many areas in which they do so in very significant numbers (like
the one discussed in the article). However, to argue that therefore all
impoverished families _can_ and/or _should_ do this is to echo the most
callous and ignorant positions of modern American conservatism.

I think that escaping poverty is possible--not just among outlier families out
in the statistical noise--and that figuring out how/when this occurs is
important to improving a lot of people's quality of life. I also think it's
super important not to let those investigations ever take on the tone of
"...and anyone who _doesn 't_ bootstrap themselves out of poverty has nobody
to blame but themselves". Study in this area must not come at a tradeoff with
acting compassionately--compassionately at macro (e.g. political/voting and
economic policies/investments), medium (e.g. donating to causes and activism),
and micro (e.g. offering what help you can to people you see suffering on the
way to work each day) levels--towards those struggling with poverty.

> there's also survivorship bias in play.

I can relate to this personally, having lost people (suicide, overdose, other)
due to circumstances correlated with both insanely strict parenting and severe
poverty. But I don't think these answers to the question of "how/why/when do
families escape poverty with minimal outside assistance?" is an instance of
survivorship bias. The hypothesis being tested is "X allowed these specific
groups to escape extreme poverty". Nobody's arguing that many (most) others in
that situation don't escape, and nobody's arguing that poverty doesn't exist
because some people escaped it--that would be survivorship bias. As you point
out, there may be long-term costs that are being overlooked, but that's not
the same thing.

When you say "On average those exposed to this style tend to do worse", do you
mean worse compared to remaining in poverty? If so, citation needed. Or do you
mean that "tiger" parenting has worse outcomes compared to other strategies? I
don't think most people would disagree with you there. The important question,
though, is why this strategy is practiced so effectively among severely
impoverished people, and why it has positive results compared to the "control"
majority--which, as you point out, is a vicious cycle of poverty feeding back
into lack of energy feeding back into lower parent participating feeding back
into stunted academic development.

~~~
fzeroracer
>That's true for a lot of people. Structural disadvantages are huge. But at
the same time, it's not true for large classes of deeply impoverished people.
As the author of TFA pointed out, [east] Asian immigrants are, by some
metrics, the poorest group of people in the New York area--and definitely
severely economically disadvantaged no matter what measurement you use. And
yet the academic performance of those groups--even in that area--continues to
surpass many others. Given how endemic poverty is among those demographics, I
don't think "it's not the poor kids doing super well in school" holds up; the
intersection must be large, and something must be materially different about
the practices of those folks in order to combat what, elsewhere in the
country/world, would be the multiple-generation-damning sentence of poverty.

This could be explained through quite a few different avenues. For example,
Asian-Americans tend to be lumped together despite how many different cultures
actually make up that group. There's also the greater paradox you bring up in
that they both compose a group grappling with deep poverty and a group that
has seen academic success. It's hard to say therefore that the two are
necessarily correlated because we should see academic success tied with
decreasing rates of poverty. While it has dropped slightly over the past few
years they still remain deep in poverty and have been for decades.

>That's anecdotal. In general, this is a dangerously politicized area. To
argue that families do not, as a rule, pull themselves out of poverty flies in
the face of many areas in which they do so in very significant numbers (like
the one discussed in the article). However, to argue that therefore all
impoverished families can and/or should do this is to echo the most callous
and ignorant positions of modern American conservatism.

Saying it's politicized would be objectively and statistically incorrect.
Socioeconomic mobility in America is incredibly low. People do not, on
average, pull themselves out of poverty at any significant rate in America
[1]. I believe it would be fair to state as a rule if you are born in poverty,
the chances of you rising up the rungs are not very high.

People escape out of poverty due to a lucky alignment of circumstances that
give them the opportunities that other people are more easily afforded access
to. The way to therefore improve people's QoL is to ensure that people have
these opportunities by improving healthcare, reducing burdens on poor families
and ensuring that people have equal opportunity regardless of race or gender.

>When you say "On average those exposed to this style tend to do worse", do
you mean worse compared to remaining in poverty? If so, citation needed.

Please read the article before you request citations. The author directly
cites a study which states that tiger parenting has the opposite result on
average [2].

For the rest of your points, these specific groups tend to have successful
people that are propped up as a result of the model minority stereotype. That
would be almost exactly survivorship bias because we only see the successful
people, not those that tried and failed or are still part of the huge group
still living in deep poverty.

[1]
[https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2006/04...](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2006/04/26/1917/understanding-
mobility-in-america/)

[2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641860/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641860/)

~~~
zbentley
In what is nearly an internet first, most of my re-responses are of the
"sorry, I was actually closer to your position and mis-stated mine" variety:

> It's hard to say therefore that the two are necessarily correlated because
> we should see academic success tied with decreasing rates of poverty. [..but
> we don't]

No factual disagreement here. I think that the cases in which it _does_ trade
off are important--but not because I think we (the US, if you're a citizen) as
a society should double down on education as the sole/primary solution to
poverty, but simply because these dynamics are important to understand. As you
imply, there are many other things also needed to address poverty as a social
concern.

> Saying it's politicized would be objectively and statistically incorrect.

That's not what I meant. I didn't mean to suggest your _claim_ was suspect
because it's a politicized area, just that discussions about the
_implications_ of claims here need to be undertaken carefully given the
chargedness of the subject. You are not an exemplar of that polemic.

> If you are born in poverty, the chances of you rising up the rungs are not
> very high.

In general, I agree.

> People escape out of poverty due to a lucky alignment of circumstances

"Lucky" does not explain the trends described in TFA. Explanation follows.

> The author directly cites a study which states that tiger parenting has the
> opposite result on average.

Correct. The cited study does not find a conclusive advantage in the "tiger"
parenting style (and finds several potential disadvantages). However, my
original claim was narrow: that this parenting style appears, given the other
claims of the article to be _practicable_ and _effective_ in the face of
extreme poverty. My question was not about the choice between "tiger"
parenting and other styles in general; rather, it was about why it (according
to TFA) is (practiced|able to be practiced|effectively practiced) by people in
impoverished situations that, as you say, are usually correlated with "poverty
as multigenerational sentence, caveat luck".

I have no speculations on why that difference exists, though it's fascinating
--and, I suspect, important to some aspects of social progress. If there is
research suggesting that there is not such a correlation, I'd be interested in
that as well. Let's just be clear: this is about parenting/upbringing
strategies that, in contrast to the norm, _counteract or appear to counteract
the effects of severe socioeconomic disadvantage_ , not such strategies on
balance in other situations.

------
hb3b
Offtopic but do most HN'ers have NYT subscriptions or use extensions to
workaround the paywalls? Anyone else wish they could filter out paywalled
links from HN?

~~~
barefootford
I've got a subscription. When I finally felt on my feet as a programmer I got
a subscription to the NY Times and my hometown paper. I think we should
support publications that do good work, rather than trying to avoid them/hack
around it.

If you're a working programmer/job-in-tech a newspaper subscriptions is almost
nothing money wise, but contributes lots back.

~~~
cpr
Sure, if you don't mind the NYT/WaPo in their current incarnation as the
official organs of the establishment.

(See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird)
.)

