The most important benefits of musical education are harder to quantify than awards in competitions. Unfortunately, the latter are easier to use as college application fodder.
Why study music? Because it can let you explore the edges of what your fine motor control is capable of, and what your senses and consciousness can perceive. Because it is a doorway to the mysteries of art and being. Because it can bring people together. Because several years of intense study can bring someone pride in skill and deep joy and happiness for the rest of their lives.
Prioritizing a short-term gain (like enabling your kids to signal to college admissions officers in their teens) over all of the above strikes me as shallow. To me, there is no excuse for besmirching something so wonderful as music by turning it into drudgery for the sake of impressing strangers.
That said, prioritizing an even shorter term gain -- like being untruthful to your kids and praising them for looking cute and making noises so they can experience an ersatz pride -- is an even shallower wallow in mediocrity.
Honestly, I wish I could play the piano so I could play piano music I like, and more easily compose music. No financial gain, but I think I'd just enjoy it. Unfortunately as an adult w/ little time to practice, it seems like learning to play is not likely.
I can listen to recorded piano music, but it's not like actually playing.
Towards this end, it's useful and good to make your kids practice when they are very young. Your brain is actually changed by doing music before the age of 12, in a way that's actually visible on MRI. If I ever have kids, I'll do this for them when they are young but let them find their own way to music or artistic expression of some kind as young adults. (Despite the circumstance that I'm an accomplished musician.)
If you aren't an excellent player of music yourself, but genuinely enjoy music, the thing to do is to take your kids along to see live music, outside of the paid perfomance context. If you can be there, taking joy in music that's not paid for, but played for the pure joy of it, then there's a good chance for your kids to pick up on the magic of it and be influenced to do music for the right reasons. (Yes, I've been a firsthand witness to this phenomenon.)
Then again, there's also a chance that it won't become your kid's thing, or that you could lock them in a tower and forbid them to do anything musical, and they'll still find their way to playing music. By these lights, making your kids engage in musical drudgery in order to impress judges so they can impress college admissions officers is about the worst thing you can do.
It's a matter of choice. I've taught music to both children and adults. The majority of adults who haven't had childhood exposure to music are operating with a tremendous handicap. If they later decide to pursue music, they will wish they'd had the early exposure. I have yet to meet such an adult who doesn't wish this. Conversely, I have also never heard of someone who has felt their thinking was hampered by exposure to music as a child.
By all means, if you have children and wish to foster the diversity of "non-musical thinkers" go right ahead. My children will be getting this exposure when they are young, then the choice to do what they will with it later on.
Cost-benefit analysis of various parenting styles seems like a good idea but, when the article goes much further than that and claims that Chua's parenting style has no benefits whatsoever, its arguments fall flat. The crucial passage:
"But hasn't all the musical practice indelibly shaped Chua's children's characters? Highly unlikely."
is supported by three claims, and when you follow the links that support turns out to be rather shaky.
Claim 1: "Behavioral genetics finds roughly zero effect of parents on personality."
The claim is implausible (if such parenting can make the kids neurotic, other personality changes must certainly be possible), and the link is to an article where the blog author is not convinced by a book arguing the contrary of this claim. The argument is roughly analogous to saying the heliocentric theory has zero credibility because "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" didn't contain enough measurements.
Claim 2: "contrary to teachers' fantasies about changing their students' lives, learning is highly specific"
The study cited here seems to show that German students who take Latin as a foreign language perform no better on general intelligence measures than those who take English. Again, the non sequitur is staggering. The analogous argument is that practicing the piano is useless, because people who practice the violin get into colleges at least as good as those who practice the piano.
Claim 3: "the effects of environmental intervention erode over time"
The link shows that good teachers can make students a lot better on immediate test results than on longer-term measures of subject mastery. While this is interesting, it has zero relevance to the main argument, which was that grueling hours of practice have no effect on students' character.
Overall, the question posed and the approach are very interesting, but the subsequent argumentation turns out to be shaky and implausible. What a disappointment!
If you follow the links further, Bryan's case seems a little more solid.
Claim 1: ...The claim is implausible (if such parenting can make the kids neurotic, other personality changes must certainly be possible), and the link is to an article where the blog author is not convinced by a book arguing the contrary of this claim. The argument is roughly analogous to saying the heliocentric theory has zero credibility because "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" didn't contain enough measurements.
Bryan Caplan cites his own blog post ("Implausible Wimps"), which explains that it's not a problem of too few measurements. From his post:
"...a massive twin and adoption literature on personality finds that family environment has little or no effect on personality...my complaint isn't just that Marano's case isn't airtight; my complaint is that she doesn't even try to rebut the hereditarian presumption long-established in personality psychology."
The book "Unequal Chances" is cited, which allegedly reviews the field and shows that personality is primarily hereditary.
Regarding Claim 2: Caplan cites his post "Don't miss the invisible gorilla", which in turn cites hist post "Magic Potencies", which cites the book "How People Learn":
This particular paper attempts to measure (among other things) "how the knowledge learned from a particular teacher influences student learning of new material."
I think Bryan Caplan is mainly guilty of too many self links, which obscures the original sources he is basing his opinions on.
Maybe claim 1 is true, but I still think it's badly supported here. Without having read "Unequal Chances", its subtitle "Family Background and Economic Success" seems to indicate that it's not mainly concerned with personality and character issues. The least that Caplan could do is source the relevant part of this book directly, instead of linking to his own blog post, which only mentions the book in one sentence with hardly any detail.
Again, about claim 2, if there is better support available, why not quote it directly? It's hardly good writing to make an important claim that requires the reader to go through reference to reference to reference and read a whole book in order to find some passage that may or may not be what Caplan's claim is based on.
Regarding claim 3, I still fail to see how that has any bearing on teacher's influence on character. Even that weak claim is not supported, much less the central issue whether parental influence (presumably much stronger, at least in this context) does, or does not, affect the formation of character and personality in their children, particularly in the case when parents choose to be very intrusive.
Amazon's preview feature suggests Chapter 7 ("Personality and the Intergenerational Transmission of Economic Status") is the relevant one. The introduction also discusses "genetically based behavioral characteristics" and how they relate to labor market success. Skimming chapter 1, it also appears that statistics on transmission of personality traits are given.
Again, about claim 2, if there is better support available, why not quote it directly?
Agreed, Caplan should cite his sources better.
As for Claim 3, I guess it depends on what one means by "character". Caplan's source suggests that whatever character effects do exist, they do not significantly effect schooling.
(This would imply that character traits like conscientiousness and a desire to appease authorities are not influenced much by environment, but perhaps not a trait like being kind-natured would be.)
The article does not, in my reading at least, address whether "tiger mothers'" children are likely to become neurotic. But it has been a very widespread claim in the aftermath of Chua publishing her views, and perhaps the main line of attack on those views. I just wanted to point out that acceptance of the "neurotic" line, which seems to be quite common, implicitly disagrees with the main point of Caplan's article.
I believe the article implicitly says they are not likely to become neurotic, or at least not neurotic in a manner that rises to the level of "not fine":
"I strongly suspect that Chua's daughters will turn out just fine. Indeed, they'll excel. That's what the children of two Yale professors usually do, however their parents raise them."
This sounds a bit, well, stupid. It assumes that the only long-term benefit to knowing how to play the piano is that you can then earn money as a musician. Bull. He cites a paper that finds that learning Latin does not affect other test scores. He twists the results in this article by saying "X" instead of "Latin" -- which is dishonest of him, he should have quoted what he actually said in the other article. Numerous studies have found correlation with musical ability and math test scores, although I'm too lazy to look them up for a comment on HN. The other thing going on is that by practicing so intensely you are getting better at practicing things. That is an extremely valuable skill, or an extremely valuable habit if you wish to look at it that way. Now I don't have any studies to back this up, so take my assertion with a grain of salt.
What's most sad about this article is how little he sees his own cultural bias.
He says that playing the piano is a worthless skill. I don't see how that statement can be anything other than a value judgement about culture -- music is culture. He says "Cost-benefit analysis is not a Western prejudice." However, the particular cost you assign to training and the benefit you assign to the resulting skill is inherently relative, and his judgement that forcing a kid to learn piano is bad and knowing how to play a piano is worthless IS a prejudice.
His main attack on the science of the book is that he says there's no evidence that parents have any effect on a child's personality. Let's assume this is true. So what? What about skills and habits? Aren't those important? (He mentions skills but not habits. I assume that you can give a kid habits, such as brushing teeth before bed.)
It's also torturous to have to read how he discusses questions #1 and #2, which are presented up-front in the source material and don't really need 23 cm of article dedicated to them.
Now I'm not one to say that Amy Chua's method of parenting presented in "Tiger Mother" is superior. I suspect I'd find "Tiger Mother" to be just another pop science book. But this cost-benefit analysis is a particularly unsound attack on the practice.
I want to see evidence, one way or the other. Sadly, it's not likely to come any time soon.
You should re-read the article. Caplan didn't say knowing how to play the piano is worthless, he said "Unless you love music from the bottom of your heart, a career in music is folly." Chua wasn't just encouraging her daughters to practice an hour a day, she was emotionally abusing them in order to force them to put in the huge amount of work necessary to become a professional musician.
The conflict that we create over the years of parenting will affect our relationships with our children. I never want my children to spend time with me because they feel obligated, but because they enjoy being with me.
The goal of parenting is to get your child to adopt your value system. Children may be grateful for what you made of them, but they still might not like you later. For me, that is failure.
For us, parenting is a balance between pushing kids past their own laziness so they benefit later in life, and enjoying relationship with them now and, hopefully, in the future.
Why study music? Because it can let you explore the edges of what your fine motor control is capable of, and what your senses and consciousness can perceive. Because it is a doorway to the mysteries of art and being. Because it can bring people together. Because several years of intense study can bring someone pride in skill and deep joy and happiness for the rest of their lives.
Prioritizing a short-term gain (like enabling your kids to signal to college admissions officers in their teens) over all of the above strikes me as shallow. To me, there is no excuse for besmirching something so wonderful as music by turning it into drudgery for the sake of impressing strangers.
That said, prioritizing an even shorter term gain -- like being untruthful to your kids and praising them for looking cute and making noises so they can experience an ersatz pride -- is an even shallower wallow in mediocrity.