So I'm not a superior parent. So what?

So of course everyone seems to have read this article. When I first skimmed through it, I thought maybe she was being satirical. On the second reading I was horrified to find that she was dead serious. I've been reading a lot of blogs that also talk about this article, most of them contesting Ms Chua's point of view. My problem with her viewpoint is not her methods of producing "success" but her definition of success. Hang it all, we're Indians and many of us have been brought up by parents like Ms Chau. We have been scolded, cajoled, even beaten into getting the highest grades, the coveted admission into the best college, to the exclusion of a social life, friends, parties, fun, travel, hobbies, interests and general timepass. I was very fortunate in not having such parents but knew plenty of people who did. So, like I said, what she does and how she does it doesn't bother me as much as why she does it.

Her very narrow definition of success bothers me. It is the equivalent of the Indian obsession with IIT/IIM/medical. So, her parenting may ensure a "superior" outcome but only if one accepted her very insular definition of what consitutes success. As parents, is that what we want? If we had to choose between a stellar career, graduation from Yale and being an accomplished pianist; and being a well-adjusted, contented, happy, empathetic citizen of the world, which one would most parents choose? Definitely, the two outcomes need not be mutually exclusive. They can, and sometimes, co-exist quite amicably in the same person. But I'm guessing that person would not have had Ms Chua for a mother!

The article came at a time when we are once again, evaluating schools for Ads. When we moved back from the US less than a year ago, I looked up the list of Noida's best schools (Hindustan times runs a survey every year), eliminated the DPS's and Amity's which have large class sizes and a huge focus on academics and looked for schools within the list which seemed to have a philosophy of experential, more slow-paced learning and plenty of extra-curricular options. That narrowed it down to only 3 schools. We met two and selected the one with the superior physical infrastructure although we liked both. It turned out to be an international school, which means air-conditioned classrooms, buses, and an IGCSE curriculum, and we have been very happy with it. My rejection of the traditional schools stems mostly from my own experiences in studying in such schools. I got nothing from my school education except practice at doing well in exams (useful takeaway, you say? I'm not convinced about that). Any little creativity that I had was effectively stamped out by the Indian school system. And yet, if I managed to get into IIM, I give the credit only to my hard work, motivation and a supportive family environment.
Even assuming I am all wrong about traditional schools, the fact is that I only have leeway of a few years to 'experiment' on Ads by placing him in the not-so-competitive schools. By middle school, he will need to enter the rat race so that he can play catch-up with his peers. But by then I will have evidence to support or disprove my grand thesis! I have a strong feeling that the school has a lesser role to play in the child's growth and accomplishments than we commonly believe. A child who is reasonably clever, who is taught to be hard-working, whose parents support him unconditionally, will do well even in an 'ok' school. He doesn't have to be in the 'best' school. The definition of best and success is so vague and subjective. We all do what we think is the best for our children but how many of us really stop to think what the best might be? By pushing my child into a multitude of classes and ensuring he gets into the most reputed schools, aren't we just falling into the activity trap of doing?
I think a little more reflection might be in order. Once I'm done packing and moving and have time to breathe, I will update on the outcome of my reflections :)