I couldn't help but note that this piece is written by a man, the father of a 6-month-old, addressing mothers with presumably much more experience to tell them what they're doing wrong. Funny, it reads very similarly to a parody that ran two weeks ago in the New Yorker, "Productivity Hacks for Single Moms from Me, a Man with an M.B.A." Regardless of the author's credentials and research, it would be fitting to write with a bit more humility. Let's hear back from him in 18 years.
17
A little beside the point, but could he have used at least one example of a woman besides the orphaned daughters of sex workers?
12
Re: Tiger Woods.
Possibly a bad example, not because he didn't do well at golf, but:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-tiger-woods-father-treated-his-son-as-a-prisoner-of-war-to-toughen-him-up-vrl2qgkmg
Tiger Woods also self destructed his marriage, was arrested for prescription drug abuse (while driving) and later went to rehab for it: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/20/tiger-woods-gets-professional-help-tackle-addiction-prescription/
NOT saying what he has done on his comeback this year, hasn't been both remarkable and praiseworthy!
4
"The 18th-century orchestra that powered Vivaldi’s groundbreaking use of virtuoso soloists was composed largely of the orphaned daughters of Venice’s sex industry."
I am sorry to be so picky but, is this the only example of women you could find to support your thesis?
7
If one is talking about child rearing patterns one of the end results should be about the character of the adult. Serial adulterer Woods with all his problems isn't a fit model for anyone. Epstein hit it out of the park.
Perhaps if Tiger had, instead of trying other outlets, had just not learned how to become a great golfer but how to be a good husband and father his drama filled life wouldn't have been such a mess.
Trump might find him heroic, I've just seen a self-centered, whiny human being.
7
So what did his son decide?
Two points: Any discussion of child prodigies that fails to mention the case of William James Sidis does not give a full picture of this odius form of child abuse.
The original story of Tiger Woods - told by his father long before 2000 - is far, far more dark than the myth related here.
Tiger's father, having been rebuffed by an exclusionary golf club, deliberately set out to form his son into America's top golfer out of personal pique. He began by swinging a golf club for hours at a time in front of the infant Tiger in his high-chair to stimulate the interest Tiger now believes he acquired on his own.
Psychiatrists have defined child abuse as any actions of a parent that puts the needs of that parent above the needs of the child. The tales of Sidis and Woods give prime examples of this.
Let a child be who that child IS, not who you wish you could have been.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
5
Your kids are not your accessories.
7
Nope. Just tell your kids to brown-nose rich kids all their lives - that's the American Way!
If I talk about my dad, you won't believe the tyranny. With ignorant immigrants - you sometimes get a good man, but a terrible father. I wasn't no prodigy for sure, but at 5 I was reading the encyclopedia Britannica...for fun. My ignorant parents thus concluded I would be no problem. And thus I never was pushed so my mind atrophied I believe. And now her I am just like yawl...with folks saying to my face is your IQ 140? And I am like, no way man...it is 117.
What kind of maniac gives a putter to a 7 month old in a walker? Did his wife own a lot of china he didn't like?
2
Somewhere, there's an amazing book in the making of NYTimes out-takes on comments that hit the dustbin. This article is a treasure trove of such, as it baits sports fanatics against feminists.
But did y'all see that Harvey Weinstein's perfidy bill (a bargain at $40M, plus his reputation and business) will be paid by insurance? I see movie ticket prices and subscription services going up, up, up!
1
Another stellar Article.
What's lost in all of this is the fact that being born gifted, wether you follow a dispersed or specialized pattern of development, does not make you a good person, nor a happy one.
The average human IQ is 100. Such a person is 85% of the population (the grading curves are invented social ritual — pure artifice revealing nothing about innate talent and would be best regarded.)
Average people can be beautiful or plain, they can enrich hundreds of lives simply by sharing their human spirit and concern throughout the day in an ordinary job that earns not even enough to pay the rent.
While failing to develop the human talent of the tiny number of gifted people is a problem and holds our society back — our big social ills and what could ultimately lead us to extinction is rooted in the systemic failure of laissez faire capitalism ( in which your social value is almost exclusively defined by your career's financial achievements) to value and aid in the general propagation of hapiness and productivity among ordinary people — who are instead graded, rated, labled and devalued as if they were goods.
This social abuse within the economic system and the resulting psychological collapse and deficit of self worth within their inner lives is at the root of a restless resentful population trending toward violence when their anger erupts and eager to identify scapegoats to punish for their pain. Fascism and Communism were the result — worse could still come of it.
5
Ah, the perspective of a new parent. Lol.
Don’t worry so much about nonsense. Everything will be fine. Be present. Make sure your kid knows how much he/she is loved. Recognize that kids will need guidance or a nudge in what hopefully turns out to be the right direction. Also, it all goes by really fast and there is no pause button.
10
My job success (recently retired) was based on doing all the jobs no one else wanted to do. On one “documentation” job, the developers were too late and slow to get “printed” installation instructions. Nominally a “writer” I was hand coding HTML. The next project was building HELP with HTML. When I stopped out of college (now a “gap” year), I spent 1/2 year as a translator, which later allowed me to become a writer. As translation is instantaneous, my writing just flows, no draft copy is created. I have never missed deadline.
3
It would be so refreshing to have an article like this highlight some women as positive examples (other than as Tiger moms).
1
Silliest article. Ive been blessed with four kids each in the Top 20 in the US at what they did. And each loved it and it brought extra pleasure to them. But in each case they had to start young. There is only one way to success, and that’s very hard work (with few exceptions). Getting a kid to work hard requires good parenting and motivation. When a kid gets good they then love what they do, and if properly motivated, they then excel and want to play more. They then own it. The author is exaggerating the true Roger story, which is v similar to the Nadal story, who loved soccer. In both cases they played an extraordinary amount of tennis. It’s not unlike the Tiger golf story, but with tennis unlike in golf, huge speed and endurance is required which comes from fitness exercise, which can be well obtained by playing other sport like soccer or rugby. In golf, this exercise isn’t as helpful, hence the difference. Footwork is crucial to tennis. The author fails to recognize that playing other sport complements tennis, and that fitness is crucial to success, but no so in golf. Without specialization and hard work, kids wont reach high levels of pleasure. Most every top athlete, artist or musician started when they were young, and the research the author claims to have is nonsense.
6
So this is supposedly a more successful approach and a saner one, but it's still an approach to raising kids to be a star, and that's the problem right there. How about raising them to be balanced, happy, ethical people? How about if on Saturdays they don't want to do any sports, but just play with friends on the street or relax around the house? It's this harping on success that has to go, not the method by which the harping is done.
12
Johnson O’Connor, an industrial engineer in the early days of GE, had to fill new jobs that GE created. They gathered data, studied aptitudes and developed the following model:
There are no "hard jobs"--only hard jobs for the wrong person
Aptitudes are not options. They exert pressure to be recognized and used.
Neglected aptitudes are like neglected children—they tend to turn into problems.
If you have a few high aptitudes, you can find a job that soaks them all up.
With four or five high aptitudes, it gets harder. Such people may report depression, drinking or substance abuse, thinking they’re crazy, etc. If lucky, they discover they have multiple aptitudes.
Each person has to figure out how to deploy aptitudes that aren’t soaked up by a job.
So: the person with no high aptitudes must be a total waste of time, right?
Wrong. They make great managers. Why?
If you choose the most brilliant mechanical engineer to head the mechanical engineering department, s/he will be romantically involved with *his/her own* ideas. S/he may appear as a narcissist to the mechanical engineers who have to report to that person.
But, a competent mechanical engineer with a work ethic and communication skills will pick the best way to solve the problem without an artificially high value in individual virtuosity.
Thanks for dissecting the siren call of hyper-specialism. Useful as it is, it's only the tip of a poorly-studied iceberg.
hf/anthropologist, S&P 500 exec, musician, writer
6
This is very interesting but also a bit sad to me. I’m sure we all would be thrilled if our child was the next Federer or Newton or Twain but the odds of that happening are almost insurmountable and putting our children in the not-so-subtle position of chasing impossible dreams doesn’t seem like much of a gift.
My three year old is extraordinarily average. She delights in singing off key, running and dancing clumsily, swimming the dog paddle and dressing herself in a ghastly assortment of colors and patterns with the pure joy of a young child unburned by expectations. Maybe giving our children the gift of joy is good enough.
21
The author makes good points, but still seems to be focused on an end goal of helping a child achieve “greatness” in some form. I’m sad that this is seen as the primary goal of parenting.
I don’t care if my kids never become the best of the best of anything. I want them to be happy, good people, who are able to take care of themselves and also be productive community members. If they are never famous, or even well-known in a professional field, that’s ok.
We worship the very elite in professions and hobbies. But not all do them are good people, or even happy. Sometimes I think child rearing gets focused on the wrong thing.
17
I was raised to be something like a prodigy, graduated from college with a dual degree at 18.
Aside from other issues with my family (religious extremism), being raised this way caused a lot of damage that, at nearly 30, I feel that I've nearly overcome.
But while I'm fortunate now, it doesn't change the fact that I never had a childhood and I would have appreciated (and not infrequently wish for) a chance at a normal life.
15
It seems to me that parental anxiety about "doing it right" these days has alot to do with income inequality, jobs being offshored, robots, stagnant wages for so many and thus, parents who want their children to get a slice of a more narrow pie as adults. Not that it was easy back in the "luckier days" raising children. But the economy was less dog-eat-dog, monitoring screen time was confined to television, and, while peer pressure was always there, it wasn't magnified on the likes of Facebook. I don't envy the parents of today.
15
For myself, the model is Slum Dog Millionaire, as I discover myself already well-prepared for a variety of new interests because of things experienced earlier in my life — unchosen by me or my parents, unappreciated and often disliked at the time they occur — that lead me to success through a lot of what others see as thinking/perceiving outside the envelope. To me, just “oh I know that.” One never knows what one is prepared for. Some call it their karma, their destiny. Sounds a trifle spooky to me, but it fits the bill.
Sorry, but we don't want a child. Even a prodigy. Like a boat, the best child is a friends child.
5
According to the myth, when Heracles was a schoolboy, he learned how to compose poetry and how to play a musical instrument along with his academic and athletic studies. He was already known to have god-given strength, and one can imagine that he was assumed to be destined for greatness because of it. Nonetheless, it was felt that, instead of having a very narrow focus, a boy should have a well-rounded education.
3
@ Dan Seiden
I would add, after 40 years of practice and study as an academic physician involved with the development of children, that you cannot accelerate the process faster than its neurophysiological bounds. You can enrich development - and you can also burn children out at a very early age. Joylessness is very effective means of doing so. Take that, Baby Einstein!
13
So often over the years parents would ask me about my Juilliard Doctor of Music son: “How did you get him to practice?”. My response is always: “We could not stop him from practicing”. He was in love with the piano and his constant playing necessitated the purchase of an electronic keyboard so we could keep peace in our home. If the talent is there the child will find his passion. Our old piano was the spark.
15
GOLF TRUTH:
My 6'2" athletic sons both swam competitively for their high school (Southern California's Long Beach POLYtechnic HS). More Olympic/PRO football, basketball, tennis, SWIMMING *AS WELL AS* HIGHEST ACCADEMIC SCHOOL IN CALIFORNIA (FIRST HS WITH SEPARATE ON-CAMPUS "HIGH ACHIEVER" SUB-SCHOOLS WITHIN PACE/CSC).
Whether a child is a prodigy or not has nothing to do with you. Either she is or she isn't. And probably she isn't because prodigies are rare.
12
As others have written here it is the rich and tyrannical, self absorbed parents who are molding their children to be the same. What happened to raising a child and teaching your child to be kind, compassionate and thoughtful? Let them play outside, stop organizing "play dates." In today's America the definition of a child is: a small being who is never to be idle or bored, to be schlepped around to all their scheduled games, and expected to go to an Ivy League college. And if the parents are concerned they won't get into the Ivy leagues..well perhaps they can buy their way in. Call it the making of a monster.
14
Brilliant article. Many thanks. Let children grow up in their own time and space. Let them make their own choices. A wonderfully caring daughter or son happy working at an ice cream shop is far preferable to a child emotionally wrecked by a parents unreasonable and constant expectations, unable ever to be the prodigy expected of him or her in a subject not of his or her choosing. It's so simple to see this. What is blinding so many parents to this? Are parents trying to overcome and compensate for their own feelings of failure through their children? Bad mistake....
10
Reading through many of the comments on this article I am in awe of the examples people have given of their non-famous children and the wonderful things their children are doing that make life better. I am more likely to meet one of these kids now adults and be touched by them than I will by Roger or Tiger. One of these kids is probably a teacher to my children or the police officer in my neighborhood. Thank you to all of the parents who raise children that help build our local communities.
We need more stories about these extraordinary people and we need to value their contributions. These are the role models I want for my children.
I found the stories in the comments more inspiring and more relatable than the ones in the articles.
16
My own feeling is that to expose children to many things is a good idea. They should be allowed "play time" on Saturday. When a child does become passionate about something they should be supported as much as possible maybe even to the point of being pushed.
And of course, I'm never surprised that the talented mathematician has a neurosurgeon father and a mother who is an English professor.
5
Roger has led his personal life as smoothly as his beautiful movement on court . We can all aspire to the former if not the latter for ourselves.
3
I completely agree with letting kids play around, experiment with different sports or instruments (if they are interested), and making sure that parents facilitate kids' interests, rather than impose them. What matters is long-term happiness, not short-term success. And what really matters is a kid's personal drive and passion for a sport, and their natural talent. Those things cannot be imposed on children, it is counterproductive and cruel, and does not bring gold medals or fame. Just let kids be kids and have fun. We always let our kids play any sports they wanted. Our younger child was extremely athletic from day one, and we supported his interest in all sorts of sports (from soccer, to skiing, tennis, biking, basketball, diving, etc...), until he started to focus on his preferred sport when he was a teenager. He never even had a coach until age 16, but he would use every minute to train on his won, with his brother, with friends, building ski jumps, rails, etc...He is now a professional skier, has been an Olympian, and has won an X-games gold medal. One of the current leaders of Giro d'Italia (one of the two top bicycle races in the world, next to Tour de France) was a Nordic ski jumper until a few years ago.
4
I feel sorry for the child of anyone who is so obsessed about optimizing the path to success--or really, just fame and/or fortune. Such parental pursuits too often are motivated by vanity.
11
This is a topic which I have long thought about. My daughter was the ultimate generalist- There was almost nothing that she didn't want to try. She was blessed with a myriad of exceptional talents. We let her find her own way (as if we had a choice!) Though the standout on almost every team she ever played on , and there were many, she chose, mostly of her own free will, to specialize in squash at age 13. She was light years behind the real competition. Luckily, she easily caught up to the elites and was a successful starter on a national champion D! team for 4 years in college. My point is this: I've concluded that the ultimate determinant of her success is that she always owned those decisions. At age 13, she competed for herself, not to please her parents. The motivation of one younger is largely to please the parents. Ditto her extraordinary academic successes. You cannot force, or, in my experiences, even encourage success. It must germinate and flourish from within to be sustainable and, ultimately, satisfying.
3
One way to fire up a child’s imagination is letting them spend time outdoors. We humans are an outdoors species and it is outdoors that we get most of our eureka moments. I am concerned that we are trying to do something that I’m has never been done in human evolution: raise a new generation with little to no interaction with nature. Instead of trying to mold a child’s interest from infancy with guided projects I wish parents simply let their kids be kids until the child shows an active interest and passion in something.
6
I’m reminded of the adage that the A students teach, and the B students work for the C students. Those C students are doing more than studying.
4
The amount of acrimony in these comments is remarkable, reinforcing my belief that everyone thinks they know what’s right for their child, themselves, period. Whereas the overall theme of this piece is rather general, practical, and obvious: back off and support your child’s growth and development, rather than project-manage it. Style more than substance is probably what parenting is about. You’re an observer, hopefully a participant and a fan, but you’re not “making” anything, park the ego and learn.
10
Broad interests and a CV which is all over the place don't actually sell very easily or very well. They might be useful and beneficial, but unless you find a way to use them for you own good and get entrepreneurial, your salary is probably going to suffer (compared to a narrow specialist).
The market cannot easily put a price on one-offs and unusuals, that's the general problem, and not being able to put a price usually means a low price. Basically, you have to ask yourself "Is HR going to know the usual salary for that CV off the top of their heads? Would they need to spend more than 30 sec. thinking about it?". If the answer is "yes", then tough luck, you might not even pass the first sift - too confusing.
1
I disagree. I’ve seen a lot of successful IT professionals that have had zig zag careers. The varied experiences they bring to the table is invaluable.
3
@Mary Sampson
Succesful when? From the outset as an IT proffessional? Or did they have to accept a lowish starting salary? Ahem..
1
Oh brother. Get a grip. Are you not aware of how elitist you and your book of jibberish are? Snap out of it man. Raise the kid well, let him be who he is, and hope for the best. Stop projecting everything YOU want upon him.
10
@Phil
Amen.
1
The title of this article is You Don't Want a Child Prodigy then it's all about two sports champions. Including sleazy Tiger Woods, Trump's buddy.
No worries. Mr. Epstein will soon realize that he's not gonna be able to mold his son no matter what "model" he picks for himself or whether he thinks "specialization" is good for a child or not.
8
No mention in your article of the 3 amazing sons of Archie & Olivia Manning. But for a serious spinal injury, the 3rd son was forced out of football while in college. He went on to enjoy a successful career in finance. The other 2 led teams to SUPER BOWL victories.
1
The USA, in the words of Garrison Keillor: “Where all the men are good looking, all the women are strong, and all the children are above average.”
So many commenters here, all vying to prove that their normal, well balanced “generalist” children are the most best, most productive ever members of society. Please quit with humblebragging.
14
Who would you rather hang out with, Tiger Woods or Roger Federer? I’d choose the latter fellow. Much more interesting man, I think. And far less in love with himself. Tiger’s parents raised him him to have no humility. That’s probably why his marriage imploded, and his career slumped.
2
Every single successful individual named in this piece--Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Vivaldi (his female students remain anonymous), the Navy SEAL, Gunpei Yokoi, Roger Smithies--is male. The idealized parent is a dad, not a mom. C'mon. The days of this kind of "innocent" accidental sexism are over. You can do better than this!
12
Or your son will become a fast food restaurant manager, and as long as he's a good person who take care of his and his own, that'll be fine too.
13
How does a seven-month-old show interest or proclivity for golf?
4
"If of his own accord our son chooses to specialize early, fine. ... It’s the child’s desire to play that matters, not the parent’s desire to have the child play.”
This sentiment must be common among parents who complain to music teachers that their child "doesn't want to practice" as if the teacher can do much about that. Yes, don't force an activity on a child who isn't interested. Yes, if the child is interested and naturally led to different instruments and goals, support that too. But children don't sustain regular practice, a demandingly high level activity, without parental involvement.
6
@Dorian: In elementary school, my daughter would play with her friend and I would sit and talk with the other mother and at 4:00 sharp it was Suzuki practice. This child grew up and is now playing professional violin in Hollywood.
But she was an anxious child, who is an anxious adult. I hope she really enjoys her music.
4
Human labor cost is plummetting due to oversupply, and the enormous complexity of society has made over specialization unavoidable. Since human mental capacity is limited, and human collaboration/communication also has hard limits (in connections), we are pushing against limits in societal complexity.
1
This is the writing of the wealthy and privileged who can dabble their way to success by taking whatever degree program suits them, golf or squash lessons? Mandarin with a little Esperanto to top off the cultural backdrop. A wonderful Nols trip coupled with a give back program for children with HIV in Honduras to top off the college resume. Personally, I find that truffles made my shift to vegan diet quiet delightful
8
These are high risk high reward professions like actors and professional sports players. Very few make it at the very top, and the cost of failure is very high, ie foregoing a decent wage in an average occupation. Since most people are average, the best average returns are in an average (risk/return) occupation. If you think you're special, feel feel to pursue the dream, but know that statistical odds are against you.
4
Perhaps someone other than the author wrote the headline, but this pieces frames an argument about generalists vs. specialists in terms of child prodigies, which is nonsensical. I was a child prodigy, by pretty much any measure. College level math starting in third grade (but also a lot of poetry and fiction writing). Writing symphonic music when I was eleven. Started at the university when I was thirteen. (Also, my mother made it very clear that she did not want a child prodigy, which is probably why I read this piece in the first place. Grudging parental support at best!) Blah, blah, blah.
I've continued on to a freaky but enjoyable adulthood - software engineer, food writer, computational biochemist, martial arts instructor, neurobiologist - and now I'm off to work in bio-robotics. More to the point, now that I'm back in academia, I'm working a lot with undergraduates.
Parents, perhaps ease off on achievement metrics with your kids, and remember that they're human beings? The students I work with are hyperfocused and stressed out - and not used to being on their own and working through problems on the fly. Not that my research students don't take to it (I'm teaching scientists, not lab techs!) but many of them spent every summer during highschool in internships, but don't know how to cook or resolve disputes with their landlords. We spend a lot of time discussing issues around sexual health, relationships, home repair... and recipes.
14
Early specialization in sports is leading to big increases in kids with injuries normally seen with college and pro athletes. Ask any pediatrician how bad it is. Ask an orthopedist and you'll get a different answer, because business is booming for them.
5
Or as my mother used to say, "Where is the burial ground for geniuses?"
2
It's been said over, and over, and over again, but seemingly to no avail. "Child prodigy" is a redundant term. This is because a "prodigy" is defined as "a child." (Mirriam-Webster -- "A highly talented child or youth." So there are no adult prodigies, and that renders the makes the term "child prodigy" redundant. However, I think it is too late to turn this ship around, and we are probably stuck with "child prodigy," but I will never accept it as correct.
4
I anxiously await arrival of the prodigy that will solve this unsolvable problem.
3
Whether a Tiger or a Roger, the desired result still seems to be an exceptional, gifted child. It's pure vanity on the parent's part. Help your children grow into exceptional people - people that care not just about their own welfare, but that of others' too. Your kids will be fine. Maybe they'll even be exceptional in their chosen vocation. But they'll probably be happy and more importantly, good.
8
Isn't the central issue the creative foundation afforded by
open ended play in the fullest, joyful, most childlike, manner? Of course a core of talent and intelligence needs to be there too, but without play little can be created.
1
Yay to the Roger approach. Give kids all kinds of experiences, skip the silly Baby Einstein and other boring things that unless they show a particular interest in them, they will eventually be taught these things. Do fun things-things you can all enjoy together-visits to look at tide pools, trampoline fun, try to learn cricket, build an ant farm, paint the side of the garage with a mural, place second hand instruments all over the house, leave fabulous books on all counters (and read them to your kids), take them to jazz concerts and to watch the marathon, and take apart broken electronics from Goodwill. And also do nothing. It is amazing what they will come up with when they have to. Raising kids is terrific fun-don't follow any program except to have fun and support what they ultimately love. I have 4 kids all into very different things-one scientist, a budding artist and two in a band- https://youtu.be/sIyipMbJMA8 . Everyone seems pretty happy to be doing what they love.
3
Gosh, I would have loved to have dabbled. But I skipped the philosophy degree because I needed a job when I graduated. And I knew what every feminist knew: making a living was my responsibility and female dabblers aren't taken seriously by anyone. In sum -- great for men, not so great for women.
10
What is success? I read nothing in here about relationships. Seems to me, the bottom line is career and because "how" you get there isn't important, we're supposed to think this makes for a parent who isn't obsessed with being on top. I've noticed that the problems and topics you worry about are generally the ones you end up. Maybe it's time to focus on something else?
4
The exorbitant cost of college and the outsized paydays in professional sports create a sort of desperation and wishful thinking that pushes kids toward early specialization. As a high school teacher, I see kids on club teams sent across the country to showcases where they may or may not be seen by scouts. Kids who aren’t even the best in their grade truly believe they will tackle their way into riches. Kids playing after surgeries or multiple concussions bemoan that if they stop now no college will take them since they focused on nothing but sports all these years.
I let my own kid dabble and he’s astonished that so many of his peers have never been to the museums, beaches, kayaking, historical sites, never learned to swim, don’t ride bikes, can’t even do laundry or cook dinner because they’ve spend every minute of leisure time hyperfocused on their speciality.
6
Epstein, you use the phrase "Tiger mom" right in your title. So how did you miss out on the fact that Asian Americans who often are raised in the very fashion you describe are pushed out of success by racial discrimination? No kidding, a white kid dabbling will do better than an Asian kid toiling away for a shot at success.
Who do you think is judging the relative success of musicians? I remember growing up hearing people describe classical wizards like Midori as "robotic" while gushing over unpolished performances by Joshua Bell.
In America, dabbling to success is a luxury for the children of privileged white households.
182
@CL
Your resentment will ever be your luggage; but I am glad you piped up and wrote this.
I for one can't stand the robotic people who murder Beethovan or Schubert on the piano.
Read this article over and over. You forgot the inspiration. You forgot the love.
40
@CL
Wrong use of "Tiger mom"? But, more importantly, the "dabbling to success" makes it sound like jumping around implies you don't work hard at whatever you're doing. Which is ludicrous. Don't agree? Look at successful Millennials of all colors and creeds. Changing function upwards with every job is the norm for lots of the people. That's the point.
This is one of those times, imo, when the race dog whistle makes me think the problem is you.
Oh, and the relative success of the vast majorities of musicians is not composing, or particularly subjective. It's who struggles thought college before getting a real job and who makes a career. I would say that anyone who "dabbled" with flute breath control and then switched to brass would agree with this piece. Or who learned how to build emotion with pacing from learning percussion instruments before moving to the violin. But whatever.
24
@CL
"In America, dabbling to success is a luxury for the children of privileged white households"
If all children were afforded this luxury, would it be better for them to be generalists or to specialize early?
6
Epstein unwittingly advances a case for the “Tiger mom” theory of child-rearing in that he minimizes the role of genetics and natural ability. Both Tiger and Roger are blessed with the musculature, flexibility, hand-eye coordination, and character to be the best in their sports, just as some kids master Chopin's "Fantaisie Impromptu" at age ten while others can barely sight read no matter the quality of instruction.
Geniuses tend not to be generalists. Tiger simply loved golf. Roger no doubt focused exclusively on tennis by early adolescence.
The point is to identify your child's natural abilities and interests and nurture them with loving support and mentoring, which should include emphasizing the importance of sportsmanship, the ability to graciously acknowledge that others, too, are talented and meritorious. Think Chris Evert.
Roger is almost universally admired because of his skill and urbanity, while Tiger has elicited a more mixed reaction, in part because of his precocious success and self-focus. But Roger shed unattractive tears after an Australian finals loss, something that Tiger has never done.
Epstein’s article accentuates issues highlighted by the college admissions scandal, a situation in which parents cheated and bribed officials in order to get their children admitted to schools they were not qualified for or necessarily interested in attending. It goes without saying that this behavior causes familial and social dysfunction, not to mention resentment.
4
In designing a college curriculum, we also have the opportunity to raise a generation of “hedgehogs” (who know one subject in extreme depth) or a generation of “foxes” (who have a shallower education in a range of subjects.)
When it comes to educating scientists and engineers, tech-oriented schools take the hedgehog approach, with 75% or more of coursework in STEM subjects. Liberal arts schools typically offer a more balanced “fox” curriculum with only around 50% of courses in STEM subjects, with the balance in humanities, social sciences, and the arts. Extracurricular activities provide opportunities for students to hone other skills in sports, performing arts, etc.
As a university science educator, I prefer the “fox” approach. The knowledge of humankind is so vast that no one can learn it all. I think of it as a layer cake, and each of us can learn only a slice of it. Those who have in-depth knowledge of two or more subjects can perceive connections and analogies that would otherwise go completely unnoticed.
We definitely need more opportunities for young science students to practice creativity and play. The “maker” movement, putting design/innovation into the hands of every student, is one way to accomplish that goal. For young scientists and engineers, research internships provide that opportunity. At the K12 level, arts and crafts and robotics club activities lay the groundwork.
5
Interesting
I think it’s absurd to say that Tiger Woods father never pushed golf on him. Are we to assume that Woods requested a golf club at 7 months? I know at 7 months neither of my children were talking. I get disgusted watching parents screaming at their little children at little league ball games. It’s sickening. I’ll never be a Rodger dad. I’ll take great care of my kids and follow and support whatever THEY decide they want to get involved in. If they want to play music, sports, whatever, but it needs to be their decision, not mine.
7
I'd like to hear about all the dabblers and zig zaggers who never did graduate, were never really good at anything, never too motivated to finish anything.
That by the would be majority of the college bound student today, who won't graduate...good luck kids.
8
Enjoy your unidimensional world. Even if you cannot imagine it, other dimensions do exist and are quite enjoyable.
How about encouraging both? Focus and dedication in one area is a great skill as well as exploration in many. Don't understand why one excludes the other.
It is wonderful to envision a life full of possibilities for one's child. And to find ways that allow one's child to excel. But I am not so keen on the "prodigy" focus, either as a child or an adult. Seems a set up to become an unhappy overachiever.
4
Don't understand why one excludes the other?
Because we are a fractured, dogmatic, self-important people for whom modesty, moderation, and compromise are lost arts.
That's why.
2
@B.
And apparently victims of this perceived status quo.
I don't get sports. Never have. Never will. What is it that my masculinity hinges on a stupid game like golf. You follow a little ball around and you hit it. In high school, I was sexually abused in a locker room. I did not go back to that horrid place that was supposed to be the training grounds to prove I was a man. Never have. Never will.
What is wrong with masculinity that finds going after balls so fundamentally imperative.
Little boys playing Look At Me Little Boy Games. Can you put the ball through the hoop. Can you kick it. Can you hit it with a stick. You had better develop these important skill or someone might call you a bad name. I can't say I never think about that locker room where rape was a silent presence. I can't say it did not happen. Never have. Never will.
10
@Tim Barrus....."You had better develop these important skill or someone might call you a bad name". ….I am sorry you don't understand, but for some, sports can bring joy.
In raising children, I think it is important to "feed their interests." They likely will be heavily invested in that interest for a time and then move on to something else. But, in the interim, they get to try a lot of things and develop a lot of skills. They may not be "the best," whatever that means. But, they won't emerge with a sense of having been forced to perform or study in a particular area to please their parents.
7
The more honest subtitle woud be "But I do".
5
@Quite Contrary
Ha! Yes, exactly.
How about neither Rodger nor Tiger. There is something cruel about egging your kids into a sports career knowing that not even the top one percent in any high school has a shot at making a living in sports.
12
Between the dad's need and the kid's is no need. This domain is freedom.
2
Blame college admissions for some of this: they are looking for kids with "passion," which for 99.9% of the populations is simply absurd.
10
Pretty sure the Tiger mom reference is not about Tiger Woods. In any case, there are more than one ways to scale a mountain.
3
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is probably the most famous tale of development in history, not Tiger Woods. Turn off ESPN and the Golf Channel, and learn his story if you don't already know it. Two hundred years from now, Tiger Woods will be forgotten, but people will still listen to the music of Mozart.
6
Interesting article but I’m curious: Does your book cite any examples of girls or women, because your article does not. Thanks.
11
I’ve often thought that the training regimes child athletes bound for Olympic level competitions are tantamount to child abuse - whether the child seems ok with it or not.
9
As a professor, I love this piece but see a broader macro context in child rearing today -- economic anxiety for all but the top 1%, given rising inequality and the kinds of racial, gender, religious, class, and other tensions that have us fighting each other rather than the unfair economic structures we face. So we agonize over how best to prepare the next generation to survive, and too often focus on young people more as future earners than learners...
7
@sue denim yes this.
The article begins by disparaging a harpist in the maternity ward. (Why would she fantasize about being a harpist when she already is one?)Then it continues partially as a "delusion of grandeur" about the possibility of a parent making a child great at something. Then it moves on to disparaging a "tiger mom."(a bit prejudicial in my opinion) My goodness . . there are many dimensions to helping a child succeed. Of course, allowing your child to explore multiple things is fantastic but also giving them a sense that discipline can help them develop is important too! I don't believe prodigies are made, but I do believe they can burn out. Sometimes they will simply transition into another area. Children have a wonderful way of sorting it out naturally for you if you don't push them constantly in one direction or another.
7
All of the parenting stuff I see these days leaves out what's most important: leave your kids alone, so they can figure out who they are.
12
Amen
4
@Jenifer Wolf....Yes, maybe. I went to a small rural school so participation in sports was relatively easy. I was not a naturally gifted athlete, but by 17, I finally became modestly good at basketball. High school basketball was pure joy. If I had known what was going to happen for me when I was 17, I would have practiced much harder when I was 10. It is a regret that I have to this day. I wish everyone could experience the joy that I had in high school basketball. But you have to reach a certain level of skill before that can happen; and if I had gone to a larger school there would have been no way I would have reached that level of skill on my own. So how do you encourage someone at a young age to believe that if they practice they too can have that experience? My point is that when I was a kid I did not know who I was or what I might become.
Exactly
16 years ago, when my only child was born I stood by the nursery window looking at all the babies with about five other fathers. We were talking about birth weights which was a new concept for me. I realized my son
was the lightest of all of the babies. I wondered, is this good or bad? Then I realized that no matter what I thought, I was already comparing my son to others and feeling anxious about it. My child was born and it was like starting a race that my son and I weren't even aware of, and that has no finish line. Welcome to parenthood. All parents want the best for their kids. Worrying is a fundamental component of the role. I have learned though, as all adults do, that every child develops at their own pace. We put all kids on the same Ferris wheel called school, arbitrarily based upon their
birth year. Even if some kids need 2 or more years for one stage of development, and some kids need a half year or less for a given stage, the spin velocity is fixed. The Ferris wheel turns at the same precise speed, with exactly one spin every 365 days. Some jump off the Ferris wheel early, some get off when they are told to, some wait until the last
possible moment, but all riders get off the wheel to make room for new riders. Many ex-riders will start the same process all over again sooner or later. Some future generation may work out a better way, but for now this is all we've got. In the meanwhile I'm just going to watch the ride, try to worry less, and hope for the best.
8
@Timmy M. Loved your analogy of the Ferris wheel and everyone being forced to go at the same speed. You are right some people need a little longer and some are ready to get off sooner. Some don't need a Ferris wheel because it makes them dizzy. Why don't we recognize this? But we put every child in a box based on a birth date. We humans are nuanced and we need our systems to be nuanced. But, unfortunately the MBA's have taken over so many areas of life (education, medicine, etc.) everything needs to be put in a box so you can measure it. I say this as someone with a MBA - everything cannot or should not be measured. There are many paths and many definitions of success, lets stop confining them to a handful of examples.
If parents don't moderate the cultural push towards devices with screens, then many children will not realize much of their potential. I am from the first generation that grew up with TV. My parents had a photographer come to the house when I was two or three years old. I was dressed up and was posed with--the TV! In the mid-50's! But I must have been exposed to reading early as well--I don't remember, really. Was it mom, or grandma and grandpa? I do remember being noticed by peers at school for my seemingly precocious vocabulary. I made a career in psychology, but I find that in retirement now I gobble down everything from Scientific American to US history and several car magazines. My wife and I had only one TV in the house in our entire 37 years of marriage. Our two boys grew up with books from the beginning and we made our decisions about where to buy houses, for example, by getting into the cheaper houses but in the best school districts. My wife, a master teacher, spent most of her career teaching in a college-prep middle-and-high schools, which facilitated our boys going to a school we could not have afforded but for the faculty tuition breaks. I realize that our boy's education guided many, many of our decisions. I regret nothing! We were lucky in that we did not have to manage the cell phone issue with them.
6
At least with regard to athletics, the Tiger approach has another huge flaw: over-training as a young person can lead to chronic and debilitating pain as an adult. Tiger Woods’ multiple surgeries may have helped him, but that is not the norm. Moderation and mediocrity are healthier.
4
My 30 year career has been a long and winding road of seemingly random pivots from ad agencies & in house marketing to philanthropic consulting to social venture program management. I’ve always felt a little bad about this seeming lack of focus which I attribute to my tendency to get bored (which also makes me feel like I’m not a serious person). Now I can just explain that I’m sampling!
4
This is still a variation on the tiger parent, is it not? Reducing pressure to specialize as a more strategic route to Winning and being A Champion?
7
@Ann
Exactly. The author's point seems to be, be more subtle and a little more devious about the way you mercilessly push your child. Here's a new strategy that could give him an edge over the kid next door!
It's also just about the relentless way parents one-up each other. Now Tiger momming is so yesterday, today the cool way to push your kid is Roger dadding.
My daughter attended a prominent college in Chicago and was granted a large some of money.
The student body was primary made up of students from very wealthy families. She worked hard her first year ending it with a 3.p and then she left;
'mom they don't really care about learning and they don't have to because they are already set for life. Mom I can't and do not want to have to live with and associate with these kind of kids."
They lost a smart and dictated young woman who has a thirst to learn, a true Student. I am a proud mom.
4
@mary My smart student also attended a prominent school in Chicago. What she and we learned all institutions are filled with wealthy students set for life who do not work as hard as others with a thirst for knowledge. It’s not just school but extends past school. Sometimes you just have to blow past it.
4
Well, it's a shame when someone cuts off her nose to spite her face.
Wayne Gretzky, the greatest hockey player of all time, almost chose professional baseball instead when offered a major league contract as a 17 year old. Gretzky has said that at 17 he was probably better at baseball than hockey, and may even have like baseball even better. He ended up playing hockey as a pro, but it was a series of happenstances and circumstances that landed him in hockey instead of baseball. Meaning, being a generalist also opens a person up to randomness, surprise and serendipity that specialization often limits. It turns out that if you really want to experience life more like a box of chocolates, being a generalist is the way to go.
2
I say, let the kid choose whether to be a generalist or focused. Besides, there are many ways to be focused - you can maintain general interests.
Our elder child chose archaeology as their discipline at 16, on a dig in Israel. Nonetheless, other interests, such as early Christian history, feminism, singing, and graveyard architecture remained vibrant sources of inspiration. They went to Cambridge. Our younger child decided to do medicine at the same age and is on that course, also in the UK. It fits him perfectly. But I would never advocate their courses to anyone else. You can't generalize.
6
@robcrawford Best advice! I would also caution parents of possible prodigies to focus on social skills. As a toddler, our son LOVED numbers and mathematics. He was multiplying and talking about prime numbers in preschool. Having watched relatives with similar qualities struggle with life, I emphasized learning social skills. Yes, he got a PhD, but he also has friends, a lovely wife, and a passion for tennis and board games.
1
In Moscow for two years on a DARPA file system project, 2001-2.
18 top level programmers including a Turing finalist one of those years and one day a week the Systems Manager for Moscow Sate University where all the Russian internet goes thru.
It interested me that every one of them had a strong interest fair or more talent in one or more of the arts. Music, painting , drawing, theatre, etc.
I asked them why they spent so much time in an art when they loved designing and writing software.
The answer for music was about identical for the others arts.
Music demands precise discipline and imagination, timing, deep insight to where you are at the moment but just as powerful understanding of your role in the whole piece and your group.
In an instant you and everyone in your group know if you are disciplined, mastering your part, in the present moment, yet very much part of the whole.
Musicians know when their partners are with them or on their own trip. So does the audience. Sometimes a performer can be a brilliant soloist, but only that. Sometimes a man is a good team man, but not adding to it anything special.
And the same is true for programming. Is your code excellent for what it does? Yet is it excellent for the whole program or nearly incompatible for the rest of the software?
Drawing or painting teaches that sometimes a fine piece is damaged with one line or brush stroke too much. The same with software.
3
@Ramon Reiser
It is not just IT people who engage in the arts, engineers and scientists often engage in sewing knitting, cooking, and crafting because it requires the same types of skills as their day job.
I learned chemistry through experimenting in my parents' kitchen. I am able to architect very complex IT solutions because I had 12 years of experience creating complex quilts and designer grade clothing before I ever started my career and can visualize each component as well the connectors that tie it all together.
I don’t understand why one has to be a generalist OR a specialist, because the truth is that most of us are both. No one can do everything, so we all must specialise to some extent. But, as much as we might want to specialise, we all also need to generalise to some extent just to live in the world. For example, you can drive a car without being a formula one driver, you can cook without being a Chef, you can exercise for fitness without being a sports star. I need all these skills to get through life, but I’ll never be a world beater at them. Also skills and knowledge are transferable across different fields and experiences. Everything builds. As for me, I am a bit of a late bloomer and have been a bit of a generalist. However, it turns out by doing that I may have ended up with a very rare skill-set that might end up being quite valuable - a new specialty all of my own. As for Rodger Federer and Tiger Woods, I think Rodger the generalist has always been the nicer human being. I have also always admired Sir John Monash, the engineer, lawyer and business man who also played piano, painted and performed magic for children. He used all his skills as a great military General and administrator, inventing the first shock and awe campaign, and winning some of the most important battles of WW1. He was also the most famous Australian of his time. His motto “I am still learning.”
3
"For now, I’m content to help him learn that neither musical instruments nor sports equipment are for eating. "
Might be the best line I've read all year, and I read an awful lot.
6
The author raises some issues well worth discussing, but the attempt to make this in part about parental gender--based on a card-trick switch from talking about Tiger Woods' father to "Tiger Moms"--does nothing to help the discussion. The issue of race and opportunity is floating around here too, though unacknowledgedly so. And, given how education has become in many ways a money game for schools, there's also a need to address the issue of how socio-economic background impacts on educational and vocational opportunity, including choice of direction (eg, between being well-rounded and specializing). In general, having discussions about educational and career choices for everyone, based only on examples of incredibly high achievers, may not be very useful to the remaining vast majority, so the "range" of examples here may not be so useful. Last, but not least, I do agree with the author's idea about taking time to get to know who your child is, what they really want and are capable of--and helping the child to figure out their own answers to that, at whatever speed may best suit that particular child. Therefore, I do hope as parents we don't just outsource guidance of our children to "guidance counselors" whose interests (this year's college acceptance stats) may not always align 100% with our child's long-term benefit.
2
The narrative of the author's column fits his book, but it can easily be written another way.
Liberal arts or general studies degrees.
Very popular until the 1980s and many baby boomers were very satisfied with completing college having looked liberally into many arts.
This path isn't taken anymore for various reasons, but was popular so generalists have always been around.
7
I will only note that, in my time as teacher and substitute teacher in the public schools over 10 years, there was very little support or encouragement or extra challenge given to students who were "gifted". Children who find learning easy become bored in the public schools, and know they are "gifted", they rarely learn the discipline required to make something of themselves. But more alarming still, is the intimidation that male teachers feel when confronted by a gifted student, especially boys. Too often, I would say almost always, male teachers will belittle such boys and treat them cruelly. This has not been acknowledged enough, but I saw it all the time. Male teachers love the average boy who is a scamp, but there is definite antipathy against the good kid who loves learning.
12
I knew there was a reason I liked Federer so much. And he speaks how many languages? This man enjoys the many flavors of life.
4
I was something of a child prodigy violinist, making my first public performance on a school radio broadcast when I was 6. But about the same time I became fascinated by a neighbor's piano, which we bought (for $10 in 1945!) and I started lessons on that too.
Although I went on to conservatory training in violin (Curtis Institute, 1959) I never stopped playing the piano, although formal lessons stopped at age 11. For a time, I tried math and physics in college instead of music and realized (as I had not finished high school) that I would never catch up professionally (at this time I supported myself by being a rehearsal accompanist --- on the piano) so I went back and eventually had a 40 year career in professional orchestras at the highest level in this country. I retired at 59 (with a decent pension!) and for the last 20 years have been seriously studying, practicing and performing on the piano. Certainly playing more than one instrument broadens one's musicianship, and since the work is never done, there is always a reason to get out of bed the next morning. Howevert the level of technical perfection required for a solo career can only be achieved by starting rather young (no later than 8 IMO) for both physical and mental plasticity --- a Tiger mom or dad is usually essential for no kid really wants to practice. And since our society generally does not usually reward such an investment financially, it is well that there is joy and fulfillment in simply doing it.
7
I remember one of the great scientists telling me “If you haven’t done your significant work within ten years, move on to other fields. If you have, move on! And if you moved on not having done your significant work, you might just be amazed how suddenly, one day, you have the insights you were looking for.
Emanuel Obiechina told me that he had over 300 PhD theses that he had given away. Just not that many lives. And the recipients often had breakthroughs and created their own lists to give away.
Look at how many fields Buckminster Fuller and Crick moved into.
At the University so Washington in the 1960s two of the great mathematicians in the world decided they should trade their fields, they had done their great work and each thought the other would within 2-3 years be among the top in the world in the other’s area.
But the deans and chairs would not stand for it! The math department was famous for them and their work. So the overseers were not going to allow them to switch to become internationally known in two or three years in their new field.
Frankly, they continued to do good work. But nothing equal to their past.
1
Thank you for this article, David. I often find myself angry at my parents for not pushing me as a child. But I was a natural wanderer, and am doing well. I hope I remember this when I have children of my own.
3
Yep. Had mine try a variety, but limited it to 1 activity at a time. Worked great.
Success is one thing, sure, but I’d rather have the secret to happiness.
My parents always told me it doesn’t matter what you do, and then would point to the vacuum cleaner repair man, who they said was about the most joyful person they’d ever met.
15
This is refreshing. I always felt like I was doing life wrong. I wandered from major to major in college, eventually settling on Art History and French after spending a lot of my time focused on music theory and (initially) planning to be a professional musician. My childhood love of drawing and legos led me to consider architecture, so I worked for several years in design-related professions - always at the bottom, despite an Ivy League degree - and then went back to get a masters of architecture. Fast forward some fifteen years and my diversity of experience and interest became the foundation for a coveted position as a designer - so few architects end up getting to actually design anything - and partner of a large firm. I can’t help but think being a professional ‘late bloomer’ as well as working some humbling jobs at the outset of my career didn’t in fact set me up on a longer arc towards success. No doubt playing music onstage also helped me to speak and present publicly, and that jazz taught me to riff on the unexpected. I’m glad to know there’s value in the wandering path I took.
12
The lack of respect for generalists is true in medicine. Primary care doctors are paid less and respected less ("But I need a top specialist to care for my commonplace ailment!"). The writer seems to imply that specialization must happen sooner or later, but we will always need more generalists (and it's more interesting to be a generalist). We would all be better off with more primary care, and fewer specialists. One of the problems with American health care is that that pyramid has become inverted. Patient, diagnose thyself.
11
@Michele Underhill I thought about writing a similar comment initially. As a geriatric medicine doc with a background in internal medicine, I am both generalist and what I call a "somewhat" specialist (because my specialty is an age group and not a body system or clinical condition).
I don't think most people and even health professionals value what generalists do until they find themselves in the middle of a bunch of specialists mostly focusing on one organ system or issue with no one really coordinating their care, taking the time to explain all their various medical issues to them, assuring their meds and treatment plans don't clash, and helping them prioritize their multiple issues so urgent/ preferred issues are addressed first. Interestingly, it's older docs and docs who have elderly family members who understand and appreciate my role the most. Often, I try selectively reducing the number of meds a patient is taking and this leads to improve health, function, and quality of life.
I also think that depending on the individual practitioner/ organization, generalists have ceded many areas to specialists. I trained at a university which emphasized the importance of primary care medicine. We were taught that we should be able to handle 90% of patients but know our limits and when to refer out that 10% where we are less knowledgeable or experienced.
((No shade thrown on specialists: they are meant to focus on one area deeply.)
6
HBO REAL SPORTS has a segment up about Norway and how it allows children to be kids, insists all kids can participate in sports and does no ranking until teen years when the child decides to get serious. They won almost 40 Golds in the last Winter Olympics and are getting better in the summer sports as well. The kids have fun and aren't saddled with the numerous injuries our "serious child athletes" sustain.
19
For those who become stars, zig zagging was more common. But what of the abject failures - - those who cannot support their own lifestyle and are unhappy? Did they zig zag, or were they people who specialized in one thing because they knew what they wanted? Seems like zig zagging might result in both great success and abject failure.
4
Someone once wrote : “half of everything is luck and the other half is fate.”
Zigzagging helps when it comes to being ready for the opportunity (with a Swiss Knife).
But with no opportunity, there seem to be no point.
After reading many of the fascinating comments I almost feel bad for Mr. Epstein. There is so much more wisdom captured in the comments than in his column that I fear for the usfulness of his book. Perhaps his next project could be a discussion with a variety of parents from different backgrounds about what is really important in life, in their hopes for their children, and in the ways they try to foster the truly important characteristics in their kids.
4
The first job of parenting is instilling good values and decision making capability. Lifelong skills will be how to make good decisions and how to fail and recover, and how to be decent human being- not violent, not nasty and constantly aggrieved.
My son is a 21 year old generalist who faced being pushed into sciences as a male who excelled in STEM. He chose philosophy and history ( which he loves) and rejected a scholarship to do medicine. His choice. May be he will return to science but heck of a position to be in with a range of options in a range of disciplines. He is doing. A bio tech subject as part of his Arts degree. But we need to be wary of gender based specialisations too. They are still around.
3
I fold an amazing fitted sheet, and can scrub a kitchen to a sparkling shine. Despite these impressive talents, that doesn't mean I want to spend all my free time and resources devoted to these tasks.
It's the same with kids, especially gifted kids. Just because they possess a valuable sought-after talent doesn't mean they want to spend all their waking hours honing it.
It's essential to praise kids for their actual tangible achievements, rather than criticize them for not loving those we think they should.
If being a genius at math gets you nothing but extra homework and time taken away from 'frivolous' things like comic books, video games and skate boarding, then you're effectively punishing kids for being talented and pursuing their own interests.
Is it really surprising that people who are criticized for pursuing things they enjoy turn out the way they do?
7
You are contradicting your central thesis with your primary example of success. This guy is a bionic conformist:
"He was a former member of the Navy SEALs with an undergrad degree in history and geophysics, and was pursuing grad degrees in business and public administration from Dartmouth and Harvard. I couldn’t help but chuckle that he had been made to feel behind. "
Your hero needs some philosophy other than "do what everyone says is important to achieve their definition of success." Business and Public Administration is a kind of all-American priesthood.
3
I may have read this about Mozart in Outliers, but the quoted line was something like : Mozart was an early bloomer and a late bloomer. He amazed everybody when very young, but his first major work came relatively late in life. So, maybe he was a failed prodigy and wouldn't have been remembered, except for a real spark that came after the prodigy fires had died down.
2
To clarify, the the quote was just about being an early and late bloomer. I should have a new line after the first sentence.
As a parent of two young adults who are leading happy and productive lives, I agree that exposing children to different activities and let them lead the way in terms of following their interests, while providing encouragement and support. What's missing from the author's plan is the importance of helping children attain social skills. I'd argue that is a critical element of success -- but don't just take my word for it, ask my kids, who are now both executives in the entertainment industry. That certainly isn't a path either my husband or I anticipated, but we did raise them to think for themselves, know and articulate their ideas and feelings, work cooperatively, understand others, and relate to authority figures and peers in a productive way. They tell us that those skills have been indispensable in a business where ability to form productive relationships and communication skills are key.
7
Two sons. First son was in elementary school when he was bused to the high school for math. He announced in 9th grade that he didn't like math and was done taking classes, much to the dismay of his counselor. Second son taught himself trigonometry when he was 11 for summer fun. Admitted to UC Berkeley when he was 14 (now 18 and a senior.) Loves math and physics. First son is on the way to law school. Second son will go for PhD in physics. It isn't only what they are good at that matters--it's what they love enough to do for the next 50 years. You don't make a child prodigy...one emerges. It's the gift plus the love that matters. (Thanks for encouraging and supporting that gift and love, Fred and Chuck.)
1
My son, a promising violist, decided to quit at 14 after 10 years of lessons. He concentrated on drumming throughout high school. He was a math major in college until his second year when he decided to take viola lessons again for fun. He soon added a music major and is now principal viola in a prominent orchestra. Hooray for the Rogers.
7
Clickbait for the 1%. Yet another article that nurtures the anxieties of the privileged parents who scour the NYT for any & all quick-win hints as to how to force-feed their children the magic elixirs of success. Tiger Woods & Roger Federer are the among the greatest athletes in history. Why would you take them as the model for how to rear your child? Why not focus on finding data-driven information about how to rear your (no doubt lovely but almost certainly not prodigious) child to be a useful contributing member of society? Go read Emily Oster’s latest piece in the Parenting section (‘The Data All Guilt-Ridden Parents Need’) for a much more realistic take on the topic of whether parental interventions actually produce results.
19
@J P I can understand your general objection, but did you read the article? Unclear how encouraging kids to explore the things that interest them instead of forcing them into a single, all-consuming track (that often reflects parents' own desires) is a bad thing.
3
@Caterina
Because he's laser focused on the notion that his kid will accomplish great things. Whether as a "prodigy" or a "generalist," so what.
3
I've known two "prodigies" well in my life. One was a pianist. His parents build an addition to the house so that he could practice 6-8 hours a day. I was his only friend when I was 15 and he was 20. He went of to college-and shortly thereafter, to a mental institution. The other, much later, was a math prodigy. When he didn't live up to his early promise, his mother disowned him. He ended up working for me as a picture framer.
8
My sons, who had similar IQs, had strikingly different paths in their early adulthood. One floundered around school, barely passing courses and often on academic probation. The other managed to get two distinct bachelor's degrees in four years, including one summer school session.
I can't say how the one who didn't do well would have turned out, as he died after an auto crash over 25 years ago. His brother is now a law firm partner and previously clerked for a distinguished Appellate Court judge in his state.
As a parent, I always believed my job was to raise independent men who would find their own passions and paths as a result of being exposed to all that I could manage to introduce them to. It was not my job to guide them on a path to "greatness" that I determined.
Yet both were avid volunteers, just as I am. Perhaps the old adage is true: "raise your children to do as you do, not as you say."
7
@Barbara my condolences on such a terrible loss. I agree with your advice. It is hard to stick to such an ethos in our pressure-cooker-Harvard-or-bust environment.
1
I have two very unusual and accomplished children. They were highly motivated on their own. I tried to provide the materials and opportunities they craved, but the will to accomplishment was theirs. I couldn’t have induced it if I’d tried, or extinguished it either.
I did read them a lot of books.
12
You may never know where your child might eventually land in terms of skills and talents etc. What you can do, however, is to help your children discover what it takes to be good at ‘something.’ Once they find that something, they will then know how to proceed.
5
At Lockheed Martin I did this:
Generality / Out of my field (Physics)
Outline and cost out the software of a $10 billion space system. Vague generalities. Used Hollywood methods (story boards). Was often told “Thats down in the noise” at specifics.
Output: Document filled with generalities.
Very Specific / Out of my field
The exact opposite: Software for space craft instrument. In machine language, it dont get no more concrete! A servo mechanical system, classic Electrical Engineering, but had no background in that.
Output: Machine code.
Generality / Out of my field
Managed a proposal for a project in software methods.
Output: Document filled with generalities.
Very Specific / Out of my field
Software for a Geographic Information System.
Output: software code. Delivered.
Generality / Out of my field
Developed requirements for a space probe, Huygens Cassini.
Output: Document filled with generalities.
Bottom Line
Lockheed Martin encouraged generalization, and moved its people to projects that could be very, very different. Almost nothing had anything to do with my college major.
3
@H Smith
And look how fabulous Lockheed Martin has been in protecting their profitability, if not public safety!
2
Quite Contrary, I think you mean Boeing.
1
The singular really outstanding (but yet not distinguishing) thing about Epstein's macho soliloquy is the complete lack of references to his basically suspect assertions, beginning but hardly ending with graph #4, in which Epstein throws out as facts highly questionable assertions about Tiger Woods' infancy.
For one thing, early childhood development specialists will tell you that an infant tooling around in a circular walker with a putting iron is a bit ahead of expected milestones, if not popular imagination.
Interesting how the elite as well as the uneducated ignores science in favor of fantasy.
4
Congratulations on your new son!!! You have some wonderful times ahead of you.
There is nothing wrong with allowing a child to try many things when young. What they should be required to do, however, is finish what they start. If you paid for 8 weeks of lacrosse lessons, they need to complete the 8 weeks and then they can quit, having discovered they have neither the interest or ability to play this sport. Sometimes, one must see things out.
Your child will guide you. Remember, Tiger said it was HE who was obsessed with golf, not his father. And if one has a child who never truly finds a passion for any one particular thing, then so be it. He'll still lead a busy life as he'll have many things to fill his all-too-few empty hours.
If there is a passion, support it but always also temper it. Children can get very carried away and don't understand balance. A few years ago, the NYTImes had an article about a 15 yr old who was earning a lot of money with an app and was extremely gifted doing coding. But he was failing all his other subjects. This is not acceptable and it's the parent who must step in and stop it.
Enjoy your baby!
6
My kids went to grade school with a brother and sister whose mom had decided they would be a pro tennis player and a singer/actress/model. Even gave the boy a Wimbledon-ish and the girl an artsy name. (Not their real names but something like Spencer Winthrop and Brigitte Matisse)
The kids were good at these things but that was all they did and she dragged them from pillar to post. Everyone felt sorry for the girl as she got pulled out of school yet again for a cattle call audition in LA.
3
How about we fathers just focus on raising good children who will become good people. As the father of two young boys, I never have a thought of them excelling to the degree this oped suggests. Rather, I want them to become young men and adult men who manage setbacks appropriately and embody the values of respect and decency.
Success is incremental and noisy as it’s happening. Only after the fact does it look inevitable. In my mind, the single biggest “trait” we can teach our children is resiliency.
Tiger Woods and Roger Federer are transcendent talents. By comparing your parenting techniques to the techniques that created these two, you are already setting down a potentially unsustainable path.
26
Three great gifts to give a child: encouragement of curiosity; time and space for reflection; and support for a passion.
9
My mother had a rule that I had to be involved with some sort of physical activity at all times. She didn't care what: soccer, yoga, skiing, tennis, dance, gymnastics, etc. As an only child, it was definitely easier (financially) to support all these activities, but I think the model worked well. As a young adult (20s) I try to hold myself to this same rule. I never felt pressure to excel or achieve, it was about exploring and having fun. As a result, I think that I'm generally more open to trying new things, and have developed a healthy attitude towards athletic and even academic competition.
That being said, being a "jack of all trades" makes it harder to form a personal identity. It's easy to see oneself *as* a "soccer player", "gymnast", etc. And during my teen years, it felt as though I didn't know "who I was" as much as some of my more focused peers. But it also, eventually, forced me to develop an identity based on what values I held, rather than on what activities I did.
3
My mother bought a Steinway baby grand and left it to sit in our living room. As a curious child, I began tinkering. Soon I asked for simple piano instruction books. Boom. Then I taught myself to read music. Boom. Then, as I was progressing pretty nicely in my abilities to conquer more difficult pieces, my mom asked me if I would like to take lessons. Boom. I had fallen in love with the piano all on my own. She never had to ask me to practice...playing was a joy I developed on my own and exercise to this day. That mother of mine...she was a pretty smart lady.
12
This article is for parents with normal and gifted children.
Those of us with a special needs child just soldier on. We thought we did the right things too, took care of ourselves when pregnant, and read to our kids and provided them as many opportunities as we could. The world still blames us for the way our kid(s) turn out - you must not have taken multivitamins. Did you eat organic while you were pregnant? Did you put him/her in this class or the other?
Where do we go? Where do we turn for support? What will happen to our kids when we are gone?
29
Might want to start with the basics like learning patience, endurance and observation--I'm talking about the dad not the kid--you have a lot to learn as a new parent-- making decisions about childhood can wait until you've conquered babyhood!
10
Even for kids who show early interest in specialization, I also support this parenting strategy. My kid has some prodigious drawing and writing abilities, and an incredible focus on them - but when we've signed him up for art classes, he's not that interested. So we don't sign him up anymore; maybe once he's old enough he'll want that environment, and the access to materials and technique it affords, but for now, why destroy his love and talent for drawing by making it a scheduled obligation? He has prospered well enough on his own time. We try to treat his skills with a combination of support, enthusiasm, and detachment: we've learned to show appreciation for his work, but not to make too big a deal of it. And we encourage him to do other things, too. We feel like his first identity is as a kid.
6
I have extreme gratitude to my father, who only wanted to find out who I was, intrinsically -- he never directed me towards any particular pursuit.
He also provided great general guidance on how to find or make a place for oneself in the world.
8
This strikes me as having been written by a first-time parent. Come back in 18 years and tell me about how you implemented your philosophy. ;-)
That said, other than protecting and nurturing your child, your basic job as a parent is to get out of the way. I used to say that parenting was the art of graceful retreat, i.e., do for your child what they truly cannot do for themselves, but let them do the rest. Since what they are capable of is a moving target, it's actually pretty hard to pull this off, but you will end up with independent, resourceful adults who can comfortably be themselves with minimal therapy.
Don't
19
The author probably does not realize what a splendid satire he has written of a whole cohort of American parents: insecure, ambitious, hoping and attempting to create the classic American dream of money, prestige and prominence for their kids. And spiritually at sea. I suspect most parents know there are better models of a life well lived and full of meaning.
26
@Don Pablo
Bless you and hope you're right. The only idiot who thinks Tiger Woods is deserving of the Medal of Freedom is yet another result of toxic parenting and the wrongheadedness of conflating sports talent with a model for nurturing or recognizing great humanity.
@Don Pablo
Why should he realize it? He gets paid to produce this stuff and his readers imbibe it.
Curiosity. Encourage curiosity. Not simple in our school system because of all the testing but try to not kill (or let schools) kill kids’ curiosity.
14
The author still overthinks it, but the general point is a good one, which is (I hope) that kids need to be kids. Within some loose boundaries, kids need to make their own mistakes and yes, waste some time. Most "successful" people, as that term is too narrowly defined by most parents (especially overachievers), aren't all that content in life. Real success is a happy adult who can contribute meaningfully to the world. I say meaningfully because I've met way too many people who think that a well-to-do doctor who prescribes needless drugs, or a wealthy lawyer who shills for any wasteful corporation willing to pay her a lot, is success. I feel somewhat sorry for the parents who jump onto the Malcolm Gladwell (a narrow-minded hack) bandwagon, or the school test score racket, but not as sorry as I am for their children (innocent victims of this thoroughly tacky, utterly boring rat race forced upon them). And all apologies, but it has to be said that upper-class New York is one of the worst places for this. The least well-adjusted adults I've met in life grew up in Manhattan or a posh Westchester suburb. Not all of them (and Staten Island, where I live, has its own problems), but enough to make you think that something is awry about the value system which surrounded them as they formed their perspective on life.
6
Pity the poor author who becomes a father just as he finishes a book explaining something completely wrong about parenting and gifted children. You can't make a prodigy. You can parent for hyper-intensive focus (Tiger) or encourage experimentation (Roger), but you can't turn a child into someone with adult-level mastery unless they have innate talent and their own drive. Real prodigies have an inborn "rage to master," a desire that can be completely debilitating and can ruin your family life and theirs. If your child is truly cursed with prodigy, the best thing for your life and theirs is to get out of their way (and perhaps support their interests). Choosing a Tiger-parent or Roger-parent approach will shape the character of your relationship with your child and your child's response to you, but it won't change their inner self.
13
I agree. My hope for my own children has always been that they find their way to happy and fulfilled lives. Being a prodigy is not a prerequisite for either of these. And where does this obsession with prodigies come from anyway? From parents who view their own worth through the lens of their children's accomplishments? A recipe for misery all around, if ever there was one.
7
Americans consider prodigy the ultimate blessing. It really has more in common with mental illness than personal acheivement.
I blame elite universities. They crave specialization in applicants. They want to see kids who demonstrate prodigious skill, at least that is the common perception.
9
Frederick Law Olmstead dalled, tried and failed at a myriad of things before he became the inventor of what we now call "Urban Landscape Design" and gave us Central Park.
5
"What ‘Roger’ dads do better than Tiger moms ever will" frames moms as harsh, unsmiling taskmasters while dads are relaxed and fun. The overall point of the article has nothing to do with gender; why get off on the wrong foot by arbitrarily pitting moms and dads against one another just for a catchy subtitle?
13
@Navah
The headlines are just bait to set the hook. Don't try to imagine that they have any other purpose. And they're artificial lures, e.g. not digestible, at that. Why the NYTimes thinks their writers can come up to the standards of Variety in this category is imponderable. They clearly have demonstrated they can't.
1
Why are all the examples of men? No exemplary female generalists or specialists? And the negative Tiger Mom stereotype against the supportive Roger Dad? While I found the subject of this article interesting and relevant, the condescending tone and lack of balance annoyed me.
18
It is also racist, as Tiger Mom refers to an Asian mother.
@Alison
Oh Alison, how picayune! He did, after all, use the pronoun "she" once, signalling gender neutral enlightenment.
Vivaldi's figlie de coro weren't that unusual. I had a roommate my first year in college who was studying composition and he was expected to learn how to play all the symphonic instruments.
He also had to learn how to write in the manner of Haydn, Bach, etc.
I took architecture as a specialty and wish we could have had a few lessons at designing buildings in historic styles. That was my first love. That would have been a lot of fun. Instead what we got as undergrads was a gloss of historic architecture by the former chairman of the department for people who want to claim they know architecture but don't get more than an idiots guide to it. Actually, most idiot's guides I've seen have more depth than that class.
4
The great dabblers, doable for the the upper class white population, the rest aren’t afforded the same luxury.
6
Interesting article w/good discussion. Thanks
Think about Vivaldi again. An orchestra of orohans in an age before people could hear good performances by radio or TV? They probably sounded like any high-school orchestra of today—out of tune, sour, amateurish. You’re romanticizing about the past. Vivaldi would probably had to endure some pretty bad playing.
4
I began telling my children when they were 12 or so that I had no idea what their adult lives would be like. I tried to describe the changes that had occurred just within my own and how my earliest aspirations now seemed like a complete waste of effort.
I did tell them that learning any language, whether human, mathematical, technological, artistic, etc would pay off in the end.
3
I am both a "specialist" and a "generalist." Both have pros and cons and so balance, as in many things, is key.
I am a specialist because i started college early and quickly focused on biology and medicine as my interests. Like all physicians and scientists, I spent years learning my craft and am still learning it. I am rewarded well because I possess unique knowledge and experience in my specialty others do not have.
I am a generalist because while specializing, I also took a bunch of classes and participated in activities that had nothing to do with my career. And I did them out of interest or for fun. When I was young, my parents encouraged diverse interests and while expecting me do to do well academically, no such expectations were placed on me for other activities. So I swam, participated in gymnastics, took up the clarinet, piano, and violin. In college, I took French, Latin, Chinese, English lit, US history, anthropology, etc. I was also the set designer for my community theater group and enjoy cooking as a hobby.
What's interesting is because of the former, people often think that I am as intense in my other pursuits. But I take pride in being a literal "second violin" and enjoy learning about music without the pressures to be a "first violinist."
1
Roger that. While the author breezes by Tiger Woods's personal issues, what is the likelihood they are connected to his rarefied childhood and growing up in what was essentially a separate life from h is peers?
If Roger Federer had not become a world-class tennis player, no doubt he would have found another passion because he tried so many things.
4
@Kathleen Warnock
Really, what is with this worship of Tiger Woods? So he can hit a little ball into a hole with a stick? How does that help the world? It does not clean the air, heal the sick, or make the world better in any way. All it does is encourage others to spend their short precious lives trying to hit a little ball into a hole.
What kind of man is he? He is a man who destroyed his family, humiliated his good wife and destroyed the stability of his childrens' lives because of his entitlement, narcissism and lack of morality. Instead of using his money to help people, he uses it for self-aggrandizement, buying polluting yachts and access to prostitutes. Ugh.
Tiger Woods' father failed him in all the really important ways. He failed to raise a decent man.
21
@earthling Hitting a ball into a hole doesn't help poor folks directly..neither do Vivaldi performances or making Hollywood movies etc.
Should we commiserate about the Worlds poor and wrongs exclusively?
1
I am a parent of three. The author’s point seems to be that you are more likely to get Federer or Nobel prize excellence out of your kid if he or she is a generalist to start. Even the law school example refers to the pinnacle of the career. Is that really the goal? I am exhausted contemplating it. Can we not just raise good human beings who meet their potential, whatever that may be?
12
My guess is that there is tremendous gender difference in male generalists vs. female generalists. Women, in general, have been so limited in their choices that there is a need to more focused attention in what the career steps are, and how to move on to the next one. Men have it easier. What a surprise!
4
My daughter showed early talent with the piano. Eventually, she began competing (her choice), and went to the top level in the demanding Certificate of Merit program. Again, based on her own interest. In high school, she made a tidy income teaching a few hours a week. At Yale, she encountered truly gifted musicians and realized she didn't have the chops for a career as a soloist or composer, although she continued to take music classes for the joy of it. Now, at 26, she rarely plays, mostly because she can't squeeze a piano into her tiny apartment. Was it a waste of time and money? Absolutely not. I believe physics and math were more accessible via her understanding of music. Competitions allowed her to face down fears, and she loved playing jazz and rock with two different bands. Our passions enrich us and need not be the means to an end. Ars gratia artis.
15
I just want my children to be happy with their lives. If that means they aren't the fastest, the smartest, or the best at multiple skills, so be it.
19
@Lisa... finally the voice of reason
I have been teaching music for 30 years. I am also a two index golfer. You can try anything and everything to raise a prodigy. Yet you cannot teach talent. Pure natural ability that can propel a kid to such heights as Tiger cannot be bought or learned. It can be developed. Out of over a thousand private students I have seen less than ten that have a true genius talent for music. It’s very rare. Golf if learned early can become natural and players can become adept to a high amateur level. Turning pro and winning on any pro tour takes talent, hard work, money and talent. Bottom line.....get a good day job.
3
If there is one trait that parents should nurture, it is curiosity. Which is, curiously, the one thing that babies naturally excel at.
16
99% of the human population isn't going to truly excel at anything, so this whole article seems rather besides the point. We aren't all potential Mozarts or Federers or Woodses.
The point of life isn't to excel. It's to do well enough to enjoy yourself along the way. Raise your kid like he's in the 99%; if he's in the 1%, I'm pretty sure it'll become very obvious very quickly.
14
Dabbling in lots of stuff may be better than concentrating on one thing, but concentrating on one thing surely beats sitting around watching TV or playing computer games.
I know someone who, at the age of twelve, not only decided she wanted to be an archaeologist, but chose the country in which she would work. So, okay, it didn't make her world famous or-- as far as I know-- a multimillionaire. But she did get hired by one of the top museums in the country for that specialty.
So if the kid wants to concentrate, for heaven's sake, go with the flow and let him concentrate.
4
This op-ed mostly made me sad. As did many of the comments selected as Times Picks. Whether we specialize or generalize our children's skills, is the point of their existence to reach the top of their professions? If so, most of them (and us, for that matter) are, or will be, disappointments.
As parents, shouldn't our goal be to encourage our children to pursue lives that they love? Yes, there are certain realities that enter the equation (i.e., earning a living, discouraging choices that harm others or themselves), but that still leaves a broad range of possible paths. Are we better parents if our children become world-renowned artists or business tycoons living under the constant stresses of expectations and celebrity, or HVAC technicians and sanitation workers who love gardening, weekend golfing and being kind and thoughtful neighbors.
People who make groundbreaking contributions in the arts, sciences and businesses certainly enrich our world, but the people we never hear of make it work. I watched Tiger win the Masters, but he never picked up my trash, taught my kids or fixed my car. Let's be just as proud of those kids and the parents who raised them.
53
Our 'founding fathers' were famously polymaths, e.g., Ben Franklin--apprentice, printer, scientist, writer, compiler of almanacs, diplomat, et al. Washington--military officer, surveyor, farmer, politician, etc. When my grandfather was born in 1881, most people lived on farms and nobody had more varied 'jobs' to do than pre-mechanized farmers. And women had to make everything by hand. Everybody had to be a generalist. Of course, industrialization 'fixed' all that. And ain't we just so happy for THAT! (Not!)
6
After Malcolm Gladwell’s book, “Outliers” was published, there was charge by upper-middle-class parents to get their child to meet the 10,000 hour rule. That is; once someone exceeds committing 10,000 hours in whatever discipline (music, tennis etc.) will equate to success or expertise in that subject. I don’t believe Mr. Gladwell would stress this is the be-all to success but there are many tiger parents that have exploited it.
I recall a conversation with a father when I mentioned a plan to sign up my 12 year-old daughter for competitive soccer, to which he looked at me cross and said, “really.” His meta-message was “really” that’s late and she’s should have specialized earlier (people from Minnesota are good at giving meta-messages).
In fact, parents in the soccer club my daughter, believe if they’ve made the sacrifices and paid all those dues, their child deserves to be at the front of the line. I had a conversation with a mother and told her about a neighbor that made the high school team and he played “recreational” she looked confused as if how could this happen.
I’m still playing catch up and learning the tiger parents have developed first-name relationships with the high school coaches in an effort to fortify their right to make the team. The lesson – or outlier – is the industrial sports complex is set up for children in the 10,000 rule club and/or with access and those athletes that generalize are going to need to be special if they want any chance.
Part of the issue here is the American faith in the idea that hard work and desire trump talent. I believe that, at the very least, the two are equal determiners, and, though scientists claim that talent doesn’t exist, I believe ability is the most powerful influencer of outsize achievement.
Talented people all say it was hard work that got them to the top, because hard work is indeed a part of the process. The thing is that talent makes practice better. Talented people get more positive reinforcement from the their practice and are thus encouraged to practice more. I guarantee that when Tiger Woods practiced golf at an earlier age, he found success quickly because of his innate ability. This success motivated him to practice while at the same time making his practice more efficient and effective.
The trap for parents is that all of us want our kids to be exceptional. The rub is that not all can be exceptional, otherwise exceptional wouldn’t have any meaning. The most important role for parents is to love and encourage their children and foster an environment where kids can find and magnify their strengths, and thus feel a sense of worth.
Being exceptional is, well, exceptional. It has no meaning if anyone can do it. Your child is exceptional to you because she is your child. You have to help her prepare to succeed in life, but greatness happens or it doesn’t, Your efforts to impose it may work, or they may make your child miserable. Let it be.
4
There's overlap between this story and the many Norwegian gold medalists.
Play anything and everything for fun as kids and train to win as a late teen.
3
I know it's already been said, but I'll mention it again - there's no way to know if this is correlation or causation. For the sports players, it could be that the most athletic kids play the most sports the longest because they remain good at them and still find enjoyment and success. For the rest of us, we drop out of the sports we're not particularly good at and focus on the things we enjoy the most, even if we're not particularly good at those either.
In this case it isn't necessarily that playing multiple sports makes you a better athlete, it's that being a better athlete makes you able to play more sports.
I imagine you could probably say the same thing for students. Dabbling in lots of different subjects might make you "smarter" or more successful. But it also might mean that people who are "smarter" or harder working are more likely to branch out and try new activities to stimulate their minds.
10
One things I have learned, in a lot of years caring for and observing children and young adults, and their parents, is that there are many, many ways to get to be a "successful" person, whatever that means. (And sadly many different ways for things to go wrong). The parents sure play an important role (mostly to love and value the child unequivocally) and then as others have alluded to, the child will find their own path.
Having said that, being a generalist is really fun for a lot of us!
2
Why does every endeavor always have to be exceptional? The reality is 99% of all people (yes sorry parents that includes your children) are not exceptional but the norm, just normal, mediocre, nothing out of the ordinary. And that’s totally fine. As a parent we should merely aspire to help our kids to find joy in an activity without any pressure to have to master it, as long as it makes them happy.
11
If you want to know what can happen to a true child prodigy, read Kevin Bazzana’s “Lost Genius” about Ervin Nyiregyhazi, one of the greatest piano virtuosi in history who wound up sleeping in flop houses and subways, and playing in speakeasies for Mafiosi. He played Beethoven piano concerti with the Berlin Philharmonic at age 11.
4
The child might not not make a binary choice between specializing and being a generalist. When a child is a baby, you can contemplate the control and influence you might impart. But then there is the child's free will, and it is remarkable how often a child will cast off those implicit and explicit expectations by the parent, as if tearing off a hair shirt. Please be open to noticing who they might really want to be, instead of already obsessing over your own influence.
1
Give your kids culture--literary fiction, classic movies, museums, dance shows, theatre, art galleries, music that has left a mark. Most of all, read, read read, and talk, talk, talk.
5
Here's an idea: treat your child as a human being separate from your own opinions, wants, and dreams. Let them live THEIR lives, instead of yours thru them.
Give them lots of different experiences. And make sure they don't take life too seriously.
For every Tiger Woods there are twenty Jimmy Piersalls and Todd Marinovichs
3
I am appalled by the headline for this article! The op ed itself is great (I'm a generalist myself, so of course it flatters me). But the headline plays into the tired trope of obsessive, overanxious mothers and relaxed pal-dads that is both inappropriate and gratuitous. It was Tiger's dad that drove him. Playing off Tiger's name to slide into Tiger moms is a lazy caricature.
7
Kind of misses the point of being a father if you ask me. The job is about raising a decent regular Joe, not a Roger or a Tiger. After all how many of either can there be?
246
10-4
6
@George Murphy It is also about raising a well-adjusted, happy kid. The biggest takeaway from this article is to back off. Give your children whatever opportunities you can for them to discover the world and nurture their interests. Let them lead the way.
8
A child prodigy is not a child.
2
So your child must be a prodigy, but you’re flexible on what, and when he achieves greatness?
How about raising a child who becomes a happy, healthy, responsible, kind, and self-confident adult? Brilliant or not?
14
David Epstein sounds like the kind of father who will love his son intensely whether he becomes a nuclear physicist or decides life as a wandering barista is calling out to him.
In other words, his son won't fail him. What could be better?
3
what of the Aaron Stern model? You can make a genius without forcing a specialty. Immerse the child in everything.
1
Leave the kids alone.
5
No generalization will describe the best possible parenting for an individual child.
1
Is there some reason you don't mention women athletes, like the Williams sisters? Women are 51% of the population. An article that fails to mention their talent is a bit limited.
7
The Tiger Woodses and Mozarts of the world appeal to us because it's an easy explanation for their success and offers a path for those who want to emulate them. "Just dabble and maybe some genius will emerge. Or not." is a harder prescription. And obviously there's a balance to be struck here. I know plenty of middle-aged dabblers who never realized their potential because they never had the patience to stick with one profession or interest. Some have wound up very unhappy, wondering why they don't have the security and success of their less brilliant peers. At a certain point, dabbling does have to give way to commitment.
1
The Boy Scouts of America have a good approach, called Merit Badges. If the scout persists, and goes on to Eagle, he has at least touched on a very wide variety of things. My son, a physician, found his experiences with a wide range of subjects, found his skills in much demand when his organization decided to adopt electronic record keeping.
1
Picking up on the submission by T. M. Lawrence, I believe the ‘Final Approach’—beyond furnishing a balanced exposure to a normal childhood—is to lead a life of intent and curiosity yourself, setting the example that your child will observe and follow, or not.
If there is a problem in this it is that the parent may be disappointed in what the child incorporates or dismisses. Don’t take it personally.
No matter what life you live, it will influence mightily the course your child sets.
1
Americans have become pathological on every level.
There is no moderation.
Perhaps Millennials will lead the way by building a family base again in one small house, with one or no cars, building community with their neighbors, being mindful of the earth, and being respectful and kind to others.
Raising children to be curious and inquisitive is the goal. The rest will follow.
8
The world of a musical prodigy is as inspiring as it is terrifying.
In college, I used to play second fiddle, literally, to a prodigy violinist. The brilliant kid was only 11 yrs old. I got to know him and his parents pretty well. While I felt as if I was truly in the presence of something great when he played, I felt like a total loser because I was barely "filling in" on my part. He was a perfectionist and was never completely satisfied with whatever he played.
His parents were so proud of him, but also were worried because he never fit in like the other neighbor kids - he didn't play soccer or little league or join the boy scouts. He wasn't interested in anything but music, the violin and playing. They worried because he focused on just one thing.
His dream was to get into Julliard, the NY Philharmonic and then become a solo artist. Pretty big and ambitious dreams for anyone, especially an 11-year-old.
I stayed in touch with the family after I graduated. His parents took me in like I was one of their own. They were extremely supportive that I went into the social work field rather than the music field.
And then one day I got a call from the parents.
Their son had killed himself.
They said he was so despondent & lost because his "master plan" did not work out. He felt no other viable options existed. They were beyond crushed. Their worst fear had come true.
All they ever wished for was his happiness. But they said he was never really happy.
19
There could be causality flaw here: Most people who get colon cancer don't have a family history, but the risk is far greater if you do. Likewise, most prodigies don't specialize at an early age but, perhaps you are much more likely be successful if you do. If the pool from which future prodigies is drawn is mostly full of non-specializers, the the likelihood of any one of them achieving greatness may be lower than for a given specializer, even though cumulatively, more future greatness comes from the children who don't specialize.
2
My son died at 31 last year. He had no huge worldly successes in his life. He struggled with bipolar-2-disorder and was a functional alcoholic. At his memorial several of his friends got up to speak and told stories like "When I was transitioning Andy was the one who listened and encouraged me when my family didn't" "When I was terribly depressed Andy was there for me" "When I was bullied online Andy was the one who spoke up for me". Andy was a huge success in what really matters in life. I am proud to be his mother.
92
In order to become exceptionally good at something, one needs to do it a great deal. This doesn't mean doing one thing and nothing else, but it does mean a huge time investment. Take Wayne Gretzky or Bobby Orr, the two men universally regarded as the best ice hockey players ever. Both of them have come out in favour of a wide variety of athletic experiences for kids, claiming that their adventures in other sports such as baseball and lacrosse contributed to their success (which is likely true). However, the other truth is that they spent enormous amount of time on skates playing hockey, much of it unstructured and with older kids. They skated far more than most kids, they dangled a puck far more often than most kids.
Most of us aren't setting out to raise professional athletes or musicians, but rather, happy adults. My son has been in Suzuki cello since he was around 4. He is now very good at playing the cello, but he will likely stop doing it seriously around the time he finishes high school. In the meantime he has learned that to do something well one must practice, to perform anything including a school presentation, one must rehearse, and that sometimes one must quietly wait one's turn and listen to others. These are life lessons. The cello is the means to an end, not an end in itself.
4
As a product of an extreme "Roger" dad, I do things that nobody else in the world can (or will) do, because humanity needs them to be done. I'm very fortunate to have the freedom to do this. At the same time, I'm still trying to get over my negative feelings towards my dad's refusal to engage in what my future might be.
In response, for my own son, I give him a variety of experiences and vision for what the results of his choices might gain him (or not). I guess I'm trying to be a "Roger" dad without the downsides (and, without the sports).
1
I credit my own farm upbringing for being a swiss army knife generalist. You had to be able to do anything with your hands and you had to be able to learn anything. My life career as a scientist and data analyst was specialized in some areas but required knowledge in many others to be able to converse and assist any number of other scientists and their specialization. Added to that were numerous outside hobbies. It also made me eminently employable. Let your children explore. It is the best thing for them.
2
ps. if your daughter wants to help you fix the small engine or the leaking sink drain, let her. You might end up with a successful engineering graduate (we did). On the other hand, don't try to stop a boy playing with dolls and fashion, our nephew is now a fashion and interior designer and good at it.
4
this article is right. try a variety of sports and theatre skills and read everything and be unafraid to try even when you may not do well but, you might. Watch your children and work with them in response to their interests. I could play the piano though never as my dad. but, I could dance - ballet, tap, flamenco, folk dance.
2
I was at the year end concert for my children's school. There was a very good young violin player. There was also an award for a huge level of personal dedication on the part of a parent volunteer to the school over a 9 year period.
I respected and wanted my kids to emulate the volunteer, not the violinist. The world is run by volunteers like that parent, getting personally involved at every level of our society. The violinist puts on a show a few dozen times per year for 2 hours.
Who matters more?
3
A good article that inspired excellent comments. But the title and subtitle have misleading implications. If you happen to have a natural child prodigy, surely you *want* him or her. A better title might have been "Don't Try to Create a Child Prodigy." Also, the subtitle implies that dads are liberal and enriching while moms are restrictive and obsessive, but the article doesn't mention Roger's dad or Tiger's mom. I almost didn't read this opinion piece, but I'm glad that I did because it described some sad consequences of pushy parenting and some rewards of more balanced parenting.
3
It’s natural to wonder what gifts lie inside their progeny. But the author never mentioned kindness. Ones ability to foster caring relationships is often the indicator for true success in life. I pity the poor son whose tiger/roger/whatever/dad ignores what is really important. Secondarily, allowing kids to find their own path is valuable if not a sign of privilege.
As a single working father of four I notice the number of comments criticizing the gendered analysis you present.
I’m regularly momterrupted and momsplained to about parenting by well-meaning (?) female parents asserting the Matriarchy’s privilege (all-knowing unquestioned wisdom on childcare)
In fact much mothering is bad parenting. I enjoy hearing about another male parent’s perspective and will reflect on it.
Ignore the momsplainers who try to invalidate your experience.
Keep up the good work.
8
As described by the author I am a generalist. As defined by myself I am more of a Renaissance Woman. I have enjoyed a variety of “careers” in various fields that share some commonalties. But for each I have had to create my own business and sell the value of my abilities. I have found that typical employers are not drawn to the broad qualities and experience a generalist can bring to a job. Employers tend to want someone who has drawn with only the blue crayon their whole life. I understand it makes them feel secure in certain ways, but it’s discouraging for someone like myself who can excel in many arenas with more creative insights because I’ve used the whole box of crayons and not just for drawing. I enjoyed reading this article which recognizes the value of people like myself.
2
Quick note on the subtitle. It is problematically misleading to use the clever quip on "Tiger Mothers" and "Roger Fathers." Roger's mother insisted on him being engaged in multiple sports, and Tiger's father was his muse and trainer for golf. In my many years of coaching youth sports it was usually, but not always, the father who was single-mindedly obsessed and the mothers who fretted on what was then excluded. Good article though. This is a huge issue that is stealing joy from many kids. What used to be fun have increasingly become expensive, adult-driven, and stress-inducing requirements. It's no wonder that kids now sneak off to their e-devices whenever they have the chance.
3
Now if only NYC private schools would join in to this thinking; and then maybe those elite colleges too?
We'd all (and our kids) have a shot!
Diversity is not a matter of race, it is a matter of interest.
With that, I would be top of class! Though I actually wholeheartedly agree with the author on how important diverse experience/perspective can be to creative thinking/action on any topic.
But the racists among us might consider, that "diversity" of experience/perspective cannot always be captured very broadly within us. Hence? A diverse group: whether in school, work or elsewhere. We all benefit, even when the diversity is brought from others. We can't of course benefit if we aren't open to the opportunity to begin with. But when we are open to diversity within ourselves and in others, good things can and do happen.
2
It is possible to have a fulfilling life without your parents pushing you to become X..
I never found financial success, but have found life worth living even without wealth and years of studying stuff I never cared about to begin with.
3
You know, your kid might end up wanting to do not much at all. Maybe he'll barely finish high school and go to work in fast food. Or he might not be interested in high achievement. Maybe he'll go to community college and then into a nursing program. Or he might do what he's passionate about on the side. Maybe he'll be an accountant at a local bank but voraciously read mystery novels in all his spare minutes.
The assumption that one's child will be a high achieving specialist at all is its own kind of burden in parenting. I bet you'll love him all the same even if he never measures up to your high hopes.
6
This is basically great advice, in my opinion and based on experience as a parent of grown children. However, the author falls into two traps, in my opinion.
One, he assumes that parents can shape their kids to a great extent and forgets about the randomness of personality, environment outside the family, circumstances of each person, etc. We parents often put too much emphasis on "designing" our children forgetting that they are ultimately the authors of their lives.
Two, Mr. Epstein, buys into the definition of success as being a Federer, Woods, or Nobel Laureate. These types of accomplishments are celebrated because they are so rare. Parents need to recognize and prepare children for many forms of success, and especially fulfillment that are not based so much on external recognition, status, competition or salary. Example: one of my kids loved high school swim team, though she was just mediocre at it. Since then she swims for fun with a master's team, and kayaks and snorkels several times a week (living in HI helps). This is success and fulfillment for her, at least in her hobbies and fitness.
2
What strikes me about this piece, as a parent, is that it starts from the same premise as the tiger mother one - that you still want your child to be hugely successful; the route but not the goal have changed. The chances are - socio-economically - that he will have a decent education and career. But there isn't much here about his general happiness, as opposed to his career path, despite the fact that, as a parent the author will probably - eventually - just want his child to be happy and confident in his primary relationships. Most of the rest will follow from there. But look at Tiger's life - and despair.....
4
@dabhand Yes, "There were, to be sure, personal and professional bumps along the way" is an understatement!
As a genius, I suggest that the missing element in this article is the admission that many sons and daughters have no proclivity or ability to excel at anything. They are average people who are average in school and at work and at most everything. These are the people who report for duty daily. They are everyman and everywoman. They are much more valuable to society than the so-called "stable genius" in the White House or this political genius commentor.
16
Much of life is a sequential acquisition of skills and knowledge both transferable and not obviously transferable. I find the job market (HR hiring and AI hiring bots) simply want a linear list of requirements, then you're in or out based on these listed often wildly optimistic "abilities". Hiring as PowerPoint bullets. In addition other "abilities" or "skills" eliminate you at stage one. The English major is out inherently viewed as non STEM and the hired person cannot write a sentence. How you prepare a child (or an adult) for that is impossible and leads to the Navy SEAL who feels like a failure as a wider syndrome.
What I have noticed is that HR is often under educated and narrow thus unable to interpret transferable skills, any education, and meaningful contributions. As an art historian who ended up in high tech I cannot tell you how many times I have been ask what I paint (it is a history subset). I pretend not to hear and discuss a recent car problem I fixed or diagnosed. Gotta hate those distributors that fail. Mind games.
4
Wow. I just hoped our kids would grow up to be kind, responsible and loving human beings. In spite of my errors they did. Wouldn’t be a more proud of who they are or delighted with then as human beings if they had won the Masters or a Grammy. In fact I would probably just not get to see them as much!
12
My advice: just love your kids and have fun!
6
@Deborah H. - Thank you! I will try.
1
While I agree with your general conclusion and applaud your work, I would like to point out how gendered is your analysis. You rely almost exclusively on male examples--and for a reason. Guess what? Women often do not have the luxury of 'dabbling' in all of the pursuits that we are interested in because we spend most of our lives focused on and engaged in the essential (but often tedious, boring, repetitive, and unvalued at least in monetary terms) work of producing, caring for and keeping alive other humans.
Until more girls grow up freed from the social pressure of making themselves attractive to and 'catching' a (usually) male mate, then following through on the next expectation--getting pregnant and being a parent--we will never know our true potential nor have the freedom to nurture our creativity and develop our intellect and inner 'genius.' But alas, if we try to do this, we are selfish, immature, self centered, unpatriotic, and transgressors of the worst sort.
3
The bottom line on this, like with most things in life don't go to extremes.
Don't coddle the kid and turn him into a spoiled brat but also don't hound the kid to be a future sports star or a straight A Student.
Anything in between is ok.
3
For every Tiger Woods who specializes and reaches the apex in his career there are a thousand never-beens. I know, I work at Harvard.
5
The first paragraph excited me as I found myself in the description of a broad interest, zig-zagger (and I have a young son as well). However I find the goal - raising a "Roger"-- disappointing and stale. This article is so close to opening up childhood, and removing traditional measures of success by society's standards, yet can't escape the trap of wanting the end goal be superstar status for a child. Why can't we hear about more normal people? Why can't we value the process more?
9
Mozart... Tiger Woods... Nobel-winning scientists. Really?
The reality is that the vast majority of children will not grow up to be internationally famous or reach the top of whichever field they end up pursuing. Whether a generalist or a specialist path is chosen by the parents, most children will not be geniuses. A prodigy is not raised. A prodigy is born. It is rare, it is random, and it is totally out of the parents’ control.
If a parent’s goal is to raise a prodigy, I feel bad for the child (who will never be able to satisfy those fantasies). Let’s stop projecting virtually-impossible goals on babies. If your goal is to raise a Nobel-winning scientist, why not pursue that yourself instead? If you cannot get a Nobel prize yourself, why should your child?
12
Tiger v. Roger. I get it. But why refer to the "Tiger Mom"? Tiger's Dad was the force behind his specialization. Tiger moms are thought to drive their children to a multitude of organized activities without a break and push them to excel in each -- more generalist than specialist. Sounds like you are just trying to pit women against men. Not surprising but disappointing.
1
We keep delving further and further into manipulations that satisfy ego. It is not healthy. We are creating generations of sociopaths by pushing these self-serving singular pursuits on children.
We should focus instead on rearing children that become good, well-rounded people. That means teaching them empathy, compassion, community, ethics, civics, service... If they are truly gifted and have the drive and ambition for that gift, they will naturally flow toward that talent in whatever form it takes. What children cannot — and do not — do is intuit the behaviors and ethics that help them become healthy adults and create healthy societies.
2
I come from a family of "achievers", we used to sit around at holidays comparing all the great things we have achieved... To be honest it's tiring and annoying to have to live up to all of that, nobody can without stretching the story a bit. Maybe this is an American thing idk, but we are herded like cows through public school and on the last day we get a speech about how we are the generation that will shape the future, now go get your college debt and 80 hour work week and be happy. We should honor creativity, we should honor just being the best at whatever you decide to be in life, if you choose to be a school janitor that is a honorable job and be the best at it, we should teach empathy and helping others. Give a child the tools and when they decide what they want to be, raise them up and be proud.
6
Parent by example. Let them see how you explore the world and develop talent. Let them catch you with your light on at 2am because you can’t put a book down. Knit. Make a piece of furniture. Take some risks.
I have to laugh when I see parents pushing kids to play the violin all day long or be “leaders” at school when the parents lives are consumed by commuting and keeping up with the Jones’.
5
@Cousy - Ha, yes. I don't know anyone named Jones, but recently I'm applying the writer's dictum to show don't tell to parenting.
I appreciate much of what he writes here. But I just can't get over how someone who'd never been a parent could presume to be qualified to write a book on how to raise children.
3
@Ray - That's because we were all children once. Possibly, we still are. Maybe all parenting is either a repetition of how we were raised or a corrective to it.
I also realize that I did not read the article carefully enough the first time, and Mr. Epstein's book was not about how to raise children but on "how society undervalues generalists".
One other thing to consider, though, is the validity of the article's underlying assumption that raising a world champion like Tiger Woods is somehow the ultimate achievement for a parent.
I would ask Mr. Epstein, would you be more proud of your son turned out just like Tiger Woods, or if he was not a world-class athlete but a good husband and father who didn't cheat on his wife with scores of adult film actresses? Is your kid being a great golfer a better outcome than raising a child who treats his family well and is an honest person?
2
Your example for late specialization in music - "the orphaned daughters of Venice's sex industry", assures that your child will be unique and intellectual regardless. :)
I would have used Prince, who became an expert in every instrument he touched. But now I'm researching Vivaldi, thanks.
1
One of my favorite quotes is about living the width of your life, not just the length. That is why a singular path is not for everyone. Jumping around, trying everything is what makes life a buffet. Like Auntie Mame said, Life is a banquet, and most poor ‘son of a guns’ are starving to death.
4
This piece makes a fine point about parenting styles, but what's with the nasty gendered subtitle? This isn't, and shouldn't be framed as, a dads-are-better-than-moms argument.
1
@ARO I don't know if dads are better than moms, although I have my private biased opinion, but I hope the paper is trying to balance the mom-skewed opinion pieces last month with dad-skewed pieces in the run-up to father's day.
Obviously children with all kinds of upbringings can grow up to be happy, healthy, successful adults, however you wish to define success. But why does the argument need to be framed in such a raced and gendered way to get the "hooray for generalists" point across? Why does it have to pit dads against moms, and more specifically Asian moms, i.e. the driven "Tiger moms" with the cliched overtones of the "uncreative" laser-focused Asian? And why are ALL of the examples of successful children described BY NAME in here male? (Yes, there's a nod to the unnamed virtuoso daughters of Venetian sex workers in the paragraph about Vivaldi's success.)
If this were more sensitive to race and class, it would think twice about telling us to reject the model of Tiger Woods, who stayed focus and overcame the odds against the Asian/black people in a white sport in favor of the privileged Swiss-born generalist Roger who had available to him every sports opportunity.
2
It's painful to watch a 30-something young man struggle in his career after being indoctrinated as a "genius" and "superior little professor". His parents did him no favors and he cannot seem to escape the narrow confines as his career in philosophy of physics flounders. He "collects" beer, knows everything there is to know about all of them and has the bottles collected to prove it.
4
My loves came along pretty much like this: radio thrillers, comic books, baseball, movies, classical music, literature, some popular music, opera, history, the singing voice, Shakespeare, long form and short form mystery stories, maybe a couple more. My parents thought this was all wonderful, but never pushed me in any direction while supporting me in every direction. Since I really didn't have the talent to excel in any of these things (or maybe I was just too lazy to find out, instead simply enjoying all of them in a happily passive manner), I ended up with a half-century career in banking. for which I had an affinity but certainly not a 'calling', and, since I tend to enjoy almost anything I'm involved in (why else be involved in it?), I did pretty well. But that was my job, and the rest pretty much constituted my Life. Take out radio thrillers (extinct), comic books (they should be extinct) and most popular music written in the last 45 years (is it even music?) , and those early interests still hold me in thrall and are the main non-family interests in my life to this day. Interestingly, I found every one of them by the time I hit 15. Since I recently turned 80, Mom and Dad must have done something right to leave me alone and just accept whatever the things were that became my abiding pursuits for (now) six to seven decades. Mr. Epstein, just maintain a benevolent remove from your kid's ever-changing interests and he'll probably turn out a pretty happy adult.
2
While the author's approach diverges from that of Tiger Woods' father, he seems to have the same goal: Produce a "successful" adult. Maybe his next book should focus on producing a happy one.
4
Thankfully, the contents of this opinion piece are not as racist and sexist as the title suggests.
We need both generalists and specialists, and everything in between. The fallacy of this piece is that there's a good and bad way to go. Humanity, and by extension, the living world that we inhabit, requires many types to continue as a whole. Neither a world of generalists nor a world of specialists will ensure that continuity.
Too many well educated, professional, affluent parents seem to want what's best for themselves, and insist on using their children as a means to that end. Beware, having "trophy children" is not even in your best interest.
5
Before you buy into this theory, please consider the great “busts”. I point you to the canonical case of Todd Marinovich and the many many others. Just look at the top draft pick in any major sport, you can all but guarantee they will be a bust.
1
This article is gross. I guess this is advice for the wealthy and privileged because it is otherwise out of touch with the reality of raising children in America today. Providing a panoply of potential hobbies to children and encouraging them to graze across these vast opportunities is an option for the top 1% or fewer. Dabbling in music and art? Where do your kids go to school? Many public schools don't have money for that, many parents cannot afford music lessons let alone instruments. And let's face it---learning the discipline to focus and practice something even if you don't like it? Hey, having a job can be like that. Many kids have to work after school to support their families. Jumping from job to job until you find what you love? Not an option for people struggling to pay the bills. Unloading boxes at a loading dock? A career someone is passionate about? No. Health insurance? Check. This article is just so grossly out of touch. Kids should be raised to be polite, have discipline, focus, do well in school to create opportunities for themselves.
4
My sister was a child prodigy violinist. To this day I can hum through dozens of violin concertos and sonatas by heart. Here's my take: there is something to be said for early training, the body mind system gets some good "roadways" out of that.
But the salient part of the process is not virtuosity. As they said about Picasso, at 16 he could draw better than his father and Ingres. But Picasso was not even close to maturity as an artist. The hard work forging a soul is inescapable.
Maturity demands complexity and that is not what child prodigies get out of repetition. This is the idiocy of "the 10,000 hours of goofing" Malcolm Gladwell rubric for genius. It's 10,000 sorrows that forge a soul worth its salt in the world.
My sister hardly performs anymore, she is consumed in regret, stalled on a backroad, the hood perennially "up." She is not driving, but stuck with a bad starter. You don't want to give your kid a bum start, trust me.
2
I have long joked that parenthood is one giant dismantling of every stupid fantasy one has ever had for oneself….
You start out all "he is going to be a star slugger…." only to later say, "ok, so he's not that good at hitting" before moving on to soccer, before you discover that he's fast but not interested….and then to ballet, gymnastics, art, Model UN, you name it.
…and as every dream dies, a new one is born….and each subsequent iteration of the dream becomes increasingly fine tuned to the reality of who your child wishes to be…..and that is the sweetest thing of them all.
Our children have taken us on some wild rides in their later years, of the best kind. Without getting into specifics, let's just say we followed one of our kids interests and it took us to some truly interesting places, metaphorically and physically. One day, I said to my husband. "being a parent of an older child can feel a little bit like water skiing against your will. You are bounced around with water on your eyes and then one day you get up and you stand and it's glorious."
You never know where your children will take you if you are open to it…..and to your point. It may not be the Oscars, but it might be the sweetness of the relationship you have with their friends. Or the pleasure of a conversation. Or the discovery of never before understood insight delivered by your brethren.
3
@Gwe
They say the first 40 years of parenting are the hardest.
Seriously though, love your post … We, too, found ourselves utterly confounded by our son's choices, steering away from everything we had expected for him - yet he knew the right route for himself, ultimately, and he is a wonderful person and we are incredibly proud of him.
It is hard to be a generalist because you will always find those better than you at anything you do if you generalize. Our egos are not trained for it. The most impoartant skill is humility. It helps you learn from failure and to find good teachers.
3
I find the story of the Polgar sisters rather more interesting: their parents turned them into chess prodigies as children. Judith Polgar has beaten many male chess champions.
But learning to hit a little white ball into a little cup a quarter of a mile away is more renumerative.
2
Why such a focus on "excellence" and "success". Perhaps we could consider our charge as parents to raise well rounded caring and empathetic children who will help make this a better planet for all rather than a relentless drive for individual achievement.
4
I wonder how many women hold Tiger Woods up as someone their children should emulate.
7
Most parents will not live long enough to really see how their kids fared over a lifetime...
... worry less and set a good example. 😊
1
Probably the parenting advice most people need is more along the lines of, You're a profoundly mediocre person, and no amount of training or intervention is going to make your child one whit different. At least it would free up some mental space to address things like climate change instead of charging into the future along exactly the same lines that are going to leave your children nothing. I mean, you literally have American fascism right now, and parents are trying to figure out how to raise the next golf pro? Really? The future of golf will be fine. The future will not.
1
All this obsession with "winners" ...
1
We need to get this message out to colleges and employer HR departments. Both are obsessively focused on recruiting specializers.
3
Sports achievements aside, who would you be prouder of as your son, Tiger or Roger. Perhaps there is a lesson here.
1
“If you do follow your bliss you put yourself on a kind of track that has been there all the while, waiting for you, and the life that you ought to be living is the one you are living. Follow your bliss and don't be afraid, and doors will open where you didn't know they were going to be.” ~Joseph Campbell
Nice read, very good idea(s). I wonder if you don't give short shrift to the idea of happiness. I'm 65 and about to retire from a 25 year career as a professor, the last 18 at an HSI regional state university. No Noel Prizes to put on the mantle, but I have had several thousand students, who hopefully are a wee bit better for having endured their time with me.
Before that, I raced and repaired cars and motorcycles, worked on the design and construction of offshore oil facilities and chemical plants, and spent a regrettable year in the insurance business. Other than that year, I'm pretty happy with the way things have gone in my life as a generalist.
My wife and I encouraged our sons to maintain as broad a scope of interests as possible and to do what made them happy. We, and I hope they, are satisfied with the result. One passed on college and has put together a successful career as a first responder. The other was interested in history and computers. He got a degree in Computer Science from the state's flagship university and wrote his senior honors thesis on the impact of the diffusion of technological innovation resulting from the Crusades on humans' ability to negotiate transoceanic travel.
We could not be prouder of either and both. I have become convinced that parental support and guidance are essential, but the decision should be up to the person. Let them explore, and do more of it ourselves. The Nobels will come, or not. And that is just fine.
1
@Jim
"wrote his senior honors thesis on the impact of the diffusion of technological innovation resulting from the Crusades on humans' ability to negotiate transoceanic travel"
Fascinating thesis!
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
2
There is such a thing as a idiot savant also, someone that excels in one thing only and utterly useless outside that field. Ben Carson comes to mind but I’m suspecting his brain surgery expertise was hype. The man comes off as not very intelligent but also extremely lazy.
1
Some advice if you want kids to “dabble” ..... never get them smart phones!
235
@NYCgg
This seems tome to be all about a middle and/or upper class problem. I don't think it applies to kids who are worrying about finding a home to live in, not getting jumped or shot at by a gang, or somply being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting killed. Those kids aren't worrying about spreading their talents and getting to the top of the pack.
7
@NYCgg
The addictive nature of smart phones becomes THE limiting factor in lives of too many children and adolescents. Just ask a phone addicted kid what their interests are!
14
@Mom Mary the target group for the lion's share of articles is middle and upper class problems, not the lower classes.
7
These are the type of lofty thoughts you have before your child is born.
After your child is born, you just concentrate on keeping them alive.
5
You think of Tiger Woods, I think of Todd Marinovich. His father deliberately "molded" him to be an outstanding quarterback. His career pretty much peaked in high school and college and he really couldn't handle the pros, turning to drugs and addiction to cope. A very sad story.
1
"Roger" parenting is what I've heard referred to as T-strategy or sometimes F-strategy or even E-strategy career development. The concept was explained within the context of technology but the idea applies almost anywhere. You start with the top of the "T", limited knowledge across a broad range of subjects, and then develop deep knowledge in a specific field. The bottom of the "T."
The F-strategy is the same basic idea. The long part of the "F" is your base. However, you're developing two specialties with more or less depth in either one. Perhaps equal. These are the prongs of the "F." Michael Jordan played basketball and baseball on a professional level for instance. He obviously did one better than the other. However, he was good enough to make both teams.
This all works perfectly well when looking at individual domains. Sports or music or technology or art. Very discrete categorical areas. Things get a little more weird depending on how you define the domain though. When you're sampling between sports, music, technology, and art, you're going to find specialties within specialties within specialties and cross over between specialties.
The Navy SEAL demonstrates this point best for me. Are history and geophysics really that different? We're using different methodology. Reading and writing versus math. However, you need geology in order to study geophysics. Geology is inherently a historical science just on a much larger scale. Not so different after all.
Why in the world is the subtitle of this article gendered? The article has nothing to do with moms versus dads, but thanks, editors, for holding onto and perpetuating damaging (but quite easy, huh?) tropes.
1
A veteran parent-coach told me at Pee-Wee hockey practice when I was admiring one particular kid who stood out (while my son looked like one of those plastic electric football players spinning around in tight circles), “there is one thing you can say for sure about a really good 8 year-old hockey player: they are a really good 8 year-old hockey player.” As to the theory of the “generalist” (multi-sport)) athlete being more fully rounded and developed, golf, in my experience, is unusual in that there seems to be a very distinct advantage in taking up the game very early in life.
1
Amen.
So much wasted breath over something so meaningless.
2
With as a Roger or a Tiger, if the goal is to be the best, we are all screwed. Only one person can be the best. How about we lower our sights and aim for a life of pleasure, satisfaction, variety, and love?
1
Indeed. Thanks for that reminder. With my son having just endured the college selection process I am disheartened that there is so much emphasis on "excellence" and "success" when we could be encouraging empathy and the good of the greater world. Instead there is this relentless focus on individual achievement.
4
Why use “Tiger Mother” when it was Tiger Woods’ father who led the charge (and that term as other connotations) and then coin the new, presumably preferable, term as “Roger Father”?
1
If you're trying to decide between being a "Roger" or a "Tiger" parent you've already lost the point of life—put yourself in violin camp or cooking classes and let that be an inspiration (or cautionary tale) for your kid or kids. Your job is not to make your kid famous.
5
It's unfortunate that an article focusing on a "better" way to raise children chooses to use the racially loaded label "Tiger Mom" for its what-not-to-do parenting style. Especially when you're calling out a white guy's parents as better role-models than Tiger Woods's black and Asian American parents.
2
Good luck. You've conflated 'tiger-mom-ness' with over-specialization. Which is incorrect. But maybe it sells. 'Roger' dads is just weird.
A really interesting and valuable article. Thank you.
Is Tiger Woods a success? I associate him with his very public and dramatic infidelity scandal and divorce. Maybe you should also think about the values you want to teach your son. More important than golf is being a decent person, loving friend, good partner, and nurturing father. Who cares how good you are at hitting a little ball into a hole if you aren't also a kind, compassionate person?
Just let your son be who he is and encourage him to cultivate his capacity for kindness and compassion.
6
@LL Along with what you say, Tiger has been in business with Donald Trump for many years and just went through a "trumped up" ceremony at the White House to help further his and the president's interests. That is not an example I would hold up for my son.
5
The tiger mom phrase has nothing to do with Tiger Woods.
"The term was coined by Yale Law School professor Amy Chua in her 2011 memoir Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother."-- from Wikipedia.
1
And maybe just maybe you’ll have just an average kid, happy and healthy, not a generalist or a specialist. Hope you’re ok with that!
5
Too many people become focused on the type of recognizable success that gets one's name in newspapers and few reach that goal. Are they failures?
I am saddened when a see a highly 'successful' young athlete or musician who has spent all of their waking hours in practice from their earliest years. Did the fame and money compensate for their lost childhood? And what of the thousands (hundreds of thousands?) that spent all of that time and didn't make it? What a waste!
1
The choice is not between tigering and rogering but between treating your kids as a "performance project" or establishing a relationship with them as people, while nurturing and discovering their interests.
1
Yet another story hinging on the superior male (with a name) to the lesser female (with a more generic title).
Attend any children's athletic event, especially try-outs or practice. Usually it's the dad, yelling to his kid to do whatever he (usually a boy) is doing his private coach's way.
4
Some marry their childhood sweethearts. Some play the field. Whatever floats your boat.
Insulting to me that you criticize the ‘Tiger Mother’ and yet talk about the influence his father had on him. But then your praise and appreciation of The Fed is given to his father. Let the children play EVERYthing.
2
As someone who has followed Tiger Woods since his TV debut at age 2, I've always thought that he would have excelled at whatever he put his mind to. His dad loved golf and got him interested in it.
Beyond the generalist and the specialist lurk the fox and the hedgehog (Isaiah Berlin), or even the dilettante and the obsessive. The world need them both.
Fun to see those latching onto the Tiger Woods' quote as a counterpoint that you should encourage specialization if your kid is, in fact, a genius.
I hate to give you the bad news...
pfft. Boy's problems.
Girls (females) who rnjoy knowing something about many things rather than many things about some thing get labeled "fluffy dabbler."
This doesn't matter if you don't care what other people think of you (a critical part of being a /successful/ generalist in today's society) but it's difficult to break through that.
1
Tiger Wood began showing an "interest and prowess" for golf at 7 months? How does a 7 month old show that he is interested in golf and not badmiton? Ridiculous. Of course, his father pushed him.
Interesting article, until the faulty conclusion.
1
It's capitalism.
The rush to earn a good wage - and only those at the top earn a good wage - has created a downstream effect of more, better, faster at ever younger ages.
National Basic Income is one solution.
1
There is so much focus on what a parent does wrong in the media. I hope that the author will take solace in this fact: Your child will be him or herself. In terms of what they want to do and who they are, they take over pretty fast. And most parents stop listening too much to experts as they get to know their kid and trust that everything is going to be OK.
1
David Epstein's article about "Roger Dads" is not an exclusive path for "Rogers", but also for "Rhodas and Lindas"...
From my perception, both as a therapist, and a recent recipient of a College Counseling certificate, I have seen the "tiger mom and dad" strategy lead to kids with anxiety and young people who have focused so much on achievement, they lose their care-free childhoods, and do not have any idea of what they really love without the pressure to achieve.
Right now, I have a graduating senior, who has a B average in school, but has already explored many types of paths, and is excited about the direction of life. I think as a culture we need to loosen up about becoming accomplished by 21. Everyone has their own path, and there will be those child proteges who play violin at 3 and become a star golf player early on, but most kids need to explore their likes and dislikes, and enjoy exploring many interests during their precious childhoods and adolescence.
3
I recommend this piece and Epstein's book to journalists also. Over the years I've seen too many articles here and elsewhere about "tiger mothers" and about prodigies destined for stardom or early entrance to Harvard and about parents placing pre-school kids on narrow academic tracks with careers in mind. It's about too much "hurry, hurry."
Another Tiger-Roger issue to give parents pause, related, perhaps, to how they developed: Tiger's personal life has been tangled with poor decisions; Roger has managed, despite enormous success, a personal life with far less drama.
This is also, I would say, the argument for a liberal arts education.
7
So, is the goal of parenting to raise elite performers who rise to the top of their field (and become rich and famous) so that their parents can be proud of their riches and fame?
Or is it to raise well-rounded, compassionate, human beings capable of giving love and feeling happiness?
Tiger Woods might be a heck of a golfer, but I wouldn't want my child to emulate him. As dangerous as it is to psychoanalyze from a distance, I feel like I'm not going too far out on a limb to suggest that his serial philandering and drug use indicate to me that he's not a person who feels love for others or experiences joy in his achievements.
And do I even need to mention Michael Jackson?
I think that if we're raising children to believe they need to be the absolute best at something, whether that's by the Tiger or Roger model, we're teaching them some unfortunate unspoken lessons: love is conditional, and dependent on achievement. Other people are objects that may or may not be useful in achieving your goals, and compassion/empathy will only complicate your interactions with them. Happiness is not within but dependent on how others regard you.
I can't pretend to know the secrets of perfect parenting, but I can say that I believe the world needs compassionate, loving individuals more than it needs another Tiger Woods.
5
Why is the goal to raise a child who will be at the top of his or her field, using either method? Come on. That is extremely unlikely to happen no matter what parenting style you use. It still sounds like the author wants to raise a prodigy, albeit through a less-focused parenting style, and ultimately that's about him and not about his child.
1
When in the course of human events there are few things of lesser lasting humble humane empathetic lasting significance than entertainment and sports. Particularly individuals in either field of human endeavor.
Athletes along with oral and visual artists are another matter.
Comparing intellectual efforts in the sciences to other academic areas of curiosity is flawed and misleading.
Ultimately there is the endless debate between the influence of nature and nurture over human success in any field of endeavor.
In the beginning there is the sperm and egg womb and the uterus and placenta before we enter the world. We do not pick our fathers nor mothers.
Beyond birth there are nurturing mammary glands. Along with mothering and
education that give way more nature and nurture influence and responsibility to mothers and mothering. Over fathers and fathering.
1
"...opportunities to try many things and help figuring out what he actually likes and is good at."
Yup. Expose the kid to things, don't force feed anything. The one caveat is to remind the kid that almost no one is great at something right away, but the more you do it, the better you get, and the better you get, the more fun it is.
3
As a private piano teacher I heartily agree with this piece. But must add an observation that young children are often over-scheduled, whether for parental convenience, or to cover all the bases of potential interests.
So... Monday is soccer, Tuesday is piano lesson, Wednesday is dance, Thurs is drama.....and this often follows hours of after-school day care. I appreciated one parent who said that their child could only have 2 extra activities each week. The activities can change each year, but the importance of unscheduled time can not be overstated. Creativity and imagination need uninterrupted time and quiet to flourish.
7
I have had the privilege of taking some avocational training in Japan. There are always a few retirees in the group as beginners. Their working lives were spent supporting their families and fulfilling others' expectations, but now that they are retired, they can pursue something they are passionate about, maybe for the first time in their lives.
I would be the very last person to tell them they shouldn't bother to pursue their passion at their age. And socially speaking, such an idea would be ridiculous.
Since I don't get regular training, it comes as no surprise to me to come back several years later to find these "seniors" being senior to me in skill. And I am happy to get the benefit of their experience.
2
This issue is all about control and fear. If you have no target, no specific goal, how do you control the outcome? If you can't control the outcome you are afraid your child will fail.
It is a human blind spot, we THINK we can control more than we can and we look at Tiger Woods and say "see, it works" without understanding that it failed for thousands of "not-Tiger-Woods" who tried, and failed for lack of luck, opportunity, and skill. Media, especially social media, hype up the successes when most who travel this path are failures and ignored.
There are too many variables in life to control. You cannot, as a science, guarantee one path to success. Therefore, generalists, who have the broad skills to exploit opportunities when they arise by luck, will always win in aggregate even as their will be a few who excel through specialization.
3
This is horrible.
How many times does the author mention best, top, and great? Too many for a successful relationship with his son.
99.9999% of all children aren’t going to be Rodger or tiger or win a Nobel regardless of parenting style. And the ones that will be great will be great regardless of their parents.
You contributed some dna, provide a loving household, a roof and food and then back off and let your kid grow up. And maybe repeat the serenity prayer a couple thousand times especially the part about the wisdom to know the difference.
5
My middle child was a bona fide prodigy. Children are tuneless at 6. They shout at school concerts. Around 9, they begin to carry a tune with handcuffs. At 18 months, Middlest could not even speak words, but she was singing nonsense on key. As a vocalist myself, I well understood that she was a prodigy. At 5, she "wrote" her first song.
When she was about 7, I was taking lessons from an accomplished opera singer, I asked her what to do about my young prodigy watching TV in the next room? She, too, took a group lesson with her sister and showed no particular aptitude. She couldn't focus, threw tantrums about practice--she was SEVEN. The opera singer smiled and told me to protect her voice, let her be a child. She would commit when she matured. No one did much before 12. I was relieved. I didn't want a Disney star.
When my younger two kids ran away from home, goaded by my abusive ex (oh yes, that happened). One of the lies thrown in my face by Middlest was that I had stolen her future by not pushing her into singing (before she was ready). Despite being a prodigious talent, SHE had to do the work. She was not ready to do that work until she was about 15. Somehow, it was MY fault that she had not been ready, even though I had provided every advantage within our finances. That she had been given the tools and chose not to use them was ignored because now she blamed me.
Prodigy is as prodigy does. She was a child. She had a childhood. I do not regret that. There is still time.
4
Some children take longer to grow up than others, I understand because I have a child who struggled for some time with the concept that he alone was/is completely responsible for choices he made. I told him that I accept responsibility for not being the most mentally healthy mom during the later half of his childhood, but that any choices he made to act out his spite, were indeed His choices. He’s always known that in his head, but his anger at me would not let him admit it for a number of years. He and I are very much alike and it is part of the reason we butt heads. Our love for each other is very strong, and we are both too stubborn to let go of one another. Just recently we had a terrible fight and had not talked for several weeks, but he called me up on Mother’s Day and are talking once more. One or the other of us always comes back to the other. Never give up hope, there usually comes a time when we all realize we have always been responsible for how our life has gone and will go, that is the moment we become truly functional adults. All others are still children, but growth IS possible.
@Dejah
I know it's unlikely, but I sincerely hope you actually named her "Middlest."
Personally, I like to know a little bit about as many things as possible, a little more about a medium sized group of things, and to be an expert in a few specific things. This balance of breadth and depth, in experience and knowledge, comes naturally to me, being Aristotelian by nature.
And while I generally agree with the notion of, "All things in moderation", to paraphrase Hesiod, I think far too many people focus on the "moderation" part, and not enough on the "All" part.
And then, of course, there is the great Oscar Wilde's take on the whole thing when he suggested that people should take, "Everything in moderation, including moderation".
In the bigger picture, I do think that society can assign too much value to the auteur or the elite, and not enough to the so-called average man. After all, as George Bailey so aptly points out in It's a Wonderful Life, "Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him, but to you, a warped frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well, in my book he died a much richer man than you'll ever be!" - Which is the greatest indictment of elitism I've never heard.
Everyone has value.
And this, essentially, is the most important think to keep in mind, is it not it?
3
You don't even want a smarter-than-most child (IQ-157...maybe that IS genus. I dunno). He's a well-known writer, now. Teachers aren't smart enough to properly deal with these kids, and neither are most parents. I will never forget my child's 5th grade teacher telling him he was the "dumbest kid in the smart class." because he didn't want to do what she had assigned, which was totally beneath the kids' ability. Her class was a total failure, not interesting, and really did my child some lifelong damage. This was in Northern Virginia. Meanwhile, as he failed in public school, I sent him to college, at night, where he excelled.
3
Now let us lament the demise of the Liberal Arts!
7
Ok, I'll bite. David went to Columbia. Most NYT writers went to elite colleges. Most start-up founders and employees did the same. Elite colleges don't want generalists. These are facts. If David had written this article with say a 25 year old son who went to SUNY Cortland and was "a happy dabbler" and David was excited that his son had so many diverse interests I might applaud this piece. But David has a 5 month old and hasn't had to sit through a 6th grade class concert where a virtuoso classmate performs a Pasculli solo. The sad fact in this culture remains: Elite institutions confer opportunity and choice that mediocre institutions do not. Full disclosure: My kid is a specialist who has just been admitted to Harvard who would not have been admitted otherwise.
3
Lets not act out all our regrets and fantasies through our children.
5
The whole Tiger Mom thing is baloney. Most of these kids are neurotic a generation later. It's a transitional phase born of immigrant anxiety, it's not a theory for raising children.
1
Before reading this book, try Epstein's first one: The Sports Gene.
I thought "Roger" was going to be "roger, that"! In other words, listen to what your kid says s/he wants to try and say "I hear you." I tried to get my kids to like sports, one took, the other does piano and drama, after trying guitar and violin. Did classical, now does jazz. The belief that parents can chart a path for our kids is overblown. Every tub has to sit on its own bottom!
1
Interesting article, horrible title. Get rid of the moms vs dads angle —- it sets up a gendered parenting comparison that is both false & is absent from the article itself.
5
Great article, but why decide in the title to put down mothers? I mean I get the joke, but as a new father you would think the last thing he would ever do is make a joke about dedicated moms...
3
Dear David,
You may not believe this, but your child will most likely be average, there is nothing you can do to change the fact that the majority of people are average. Figure out how to think about the lives of average people,
4
@paul Exactly. Most children are not geniuses, not that creative, and won't do anything particularly impressive in their professional lives. That doesn't mean that they aren't valuable and wonderful human beings.
2
While many 1st worlders fantasize enchanting lives for their offspring, most parents just pray for a child’s healthy survival. Seriously. Day 2 hits and the Roger/Tiger Dads are looking at me and my fellow clinicians for basic survival assistance. The “go with your gut” and “you know more than you think you do” tines have been replaced with anxiety and google/researched minutiae that overwhelms both parent AND infant. What a sad, anxious generation of children R/T dads are fostering. No wonder pediatricians like me see children with abnormally long attachment problems and the delayed development of self soothing that is key to a healthy psyche. Mostly, I want to tell moms and dads to exit the whirlwind and lovingly join their child’s jaunt.
Is this article only for men, about men?
All of Epstein's subjects are male sports stars.
Exclusive use of male pronouns.
Fathers mentioned (positively) vs. mothers (Tiger – a negative).
I get that Epstein now has a son, but geez. His new book is called "Range." How is leaving women out anything other than narrow?
Thank you.
7
Is generalist just another name for B student ? You know, the ones that rule the earth.
1
David will be pleasantly surprised and also very disappointed that no matter how hard he tries to plan or game out his child’s future, that future will look like nothing he could possibly imagine today and will defy all his best laid plans. Ask any parent, any. David, relax and enjoy.
1
Great article but not sure Dave needed to disparage moms in the headline!
1
I'm most interested in my children (grown) being happy and fulfilled in whatever they choose to do (they are), not in what I chose for them when they were tots. Oh, and I don't care so much about being able to brag about them and their supposed fabulous achievements in music or sport or whatever.
Additionally, Tiger was in the news for things other than his playing, while Roger was not. Many of the forced child prodigies end up with pathology, though the exact ratios should be studied. Finally, American's who have the privilege to decide such things for their children, are missing the boat, as if it was on Mars - None of this discussion involves the child as a future adult who is happy, psychosocially healthy, gets along with others, helps others, and is a good person. How would things change if THAT was the goal?
2
It used to be in America that you could raise a child on one income even if you were middle class. But increasingly it's mostly the very rich who can afford to have just one working parent, and usually the one not working is the mother. Because the family with one stay at home parent is thus necessarily quite wealthy (at least where I live), they have the luxury of spending an enormous amount of money on efforts to turn their child into a prodigy. One mom I know hires a Russian chess master so her child will be nationally ranked in chess. Another pays for private gymnastics coaching so her child can be the next Simone Biles. A third drives a hour out of her way three days a week so her child can train at the top ice skating rink in the area. Sorry, but working mothers don't have the time, and middle class mothers (working or not) don't have the money. If you wonder why there is all this over-involvement in children's lives nowadays, that did not exist when we were little, it's usually because of the money.
3
I agree. But, until public colleges are again free it will be hard to dabble and explore new things before,during or after college.
I am a 72 year old retired NYC teacher. If there is anything that I have learned in this life, it is that loving and being loved is by far the most important.
So my wife and I fed our daughter love, unconditional love all her life, and let her choose her own path, hoping she in turn would find a love of her own, which she has.
5
When it comes to funding scientific research, it's the narrow, less risky, more siloed proposals that get funded. Unfortunately, mavericks who see the world panoramically must submit their ideas to risk-averse reviewers who prefer the microscopic view. Most of what we have now is incremental science that's not worth the money spent. The better ways to fund research are too discomfiting and upset the status quo.
It takes different personalities to succeed in various fields.
If you do not have the patience to practice, practice, practice
your gold swing, your chipping, your putting and are fortunate
enough to have access to a Golf Course where you can do
this at all hours - you will not become a pro-golfer, likewise
finding a great coach for tennis and a tennis court and willing
opponents who let you try your shots over and over again.
We do not hear much about those who almost made it
to the Pros - there is only so much room at the top.
Much better to love and support your children then to expect
that the win a Nobel Prize or the Masters.
5
First, there can only be one "best." If we set being the best as the bar, then we are basically setting them up for a life of frustration.
Next, we need a society of emotionally and physically healthy people who know how to raise other emotionally and physically healthy people. Families that revolve around a prodigy often neglect the needs of other children in the family, creating resentments. Also, pushing children in intense athletic pursuits can lead to chronic injuries and pain, disabling them from healthy adulthoods.
Finally having a prodigy seems to exist mostly for the parents' own egos. People don't brag about being prodigies themselves. But parents love talking about kids' accomplishments, sometimes to the point of obsession. Raising kids shouldn't be a competitive sport.
5
Easier said than done. My 9 year old plays piano, composes his own little pieces, tinkers with electronics, draws comics, makes little movies, gardens, and builds all manner of Rube Goldberg contraptions. But he can be lonely because most of the other boys are busy with their year-round sports commitments.
5
Specialization is highly over-valued (and over-paid). And being a prodigy does not necessarily imply specialized knowledge. Many prodigies are polymaths with diverse knowledge in a variety of fields.
Consider: Albert Einstein was a talented violinist. Ansel Adams trained as a concert pianist. And, of course, there was DaVinci.
From Wikipedia: [Peter] Burke warns that in the age of specialization, polymathic people are more necessary than ever, both for synthesis—to paint the big picture—and for analysis. He says: “It takes a polymath to ‘mind the gap’ and draw attention to the knowledges that may otherwise disappear into the spaces between disciplines, as they are currently defined and organized”
3
@Frank Baudino….And how many of us are Albert Einstein, Ansel Adams, or Leonardo DeVinci? For the rest of us excellence in any endeavor is a little harder to achieve, even if we devote every fiber of our being to the effort.
The pushing and prodding I have witnessed by both Roger and Tiger parents is invariably done by average adults trying to force an average child into the genius stratosphere. There is nothing more pathetic than seeing a parent basking in the glory of a pushed and managed child prodigy. Your child is an individual who first and foremost should be loved for his or her uniqueness. As a parent of grown children I allowed my children to guide me into areas of learning that they wanted to explore and not visa versa. My husband and I were the learning enablers and all we did was to treat the accumulation of knowledge and skills as an adventure.
7
Interesting article. Lots of anecdotes about the lives and outcomes of people with exceptional talent. Hard to generalize to those of us who are not exceptionally talented and unlikely to have exceptional children.
Tiger and Roger found very different paths to exceptional outcomes in sport. Smithies also found a tinkerers way to an exceptional outcome.
For myself, I'll keep dabbling and playing and will continue to encourage my kids ( now adults ) to do the same because its so enjoyable.
2
It is odd to bring up the golf and tennis examples. Both are just silly games although quite lucrative for some and enjoyable to watch for others, incl. me.
2
What ever happened to learning to give back to the community at an early age? As a child and teenager, I wasn't particularly good at the arts or sports (actually I was downright horrible at sports). Many child are mediocre at these things. But no child needs to be particularly good at community service - you just need a desire to help out. So I did. I volunteered weekly in a hospital providing free services to poor children and also made sandwiches for the homeless. This kind of activity left a lasting impression and felt wonderful. Now I'm encouraging my children to do volunteer work too, and they love it.
9
Why pit this as Tiger moms and Roger dads, especially when all the examples you give are of dads? It is just exacerbating stereotypes that are catchy but demean mothers.
(And, being a few months into parenthood and thinking you will find any parenting stage or parenting task you have not encountered yet "easy" may set you up for some surprises!)
4
In Biology the generalist can never exploit an environment as well as a specialist, but when the environment is disturbed, it is the generalist who survive. I will go with the generalist any day of the week.
1
Thanks for sharing these stories of people specializing latter in life versus getting a narrow focus training diet early in life.
I wish you good luck with your kid too. Being attentive to what they need to grow and develop while trying to set them up for social and economic success is tricky. Our own insecurities as parents often lead to pushing kids to excel at something early to built the narrative that they are special.
This reminds me of my daughter going to kinder garden in Los Altos feeling somewhat inadequate at 4 because all the other kids were already starting reading sentences on day one. It took years for her to realize and finally internalize she is one of the smart one.
So, I understand the value of self narratives in young kids and we should give them opportunities to develop skills they can be proud of. That does not mean doing only one thing for hours on end.
These days social skills are critical skills, you only get that through interactions with peers, teachers, family as well as being curious about the world so you can carry a conversation about politics, religion, philosophy, psychology, sports, relationships...
The best thing you can do for a child (prodigy or not) is not to push them into specializing early, helping them staying grounded and social, make sure they develop a vision for what they want to do in there latter teen and then support them to develop grit and take a chance on pursuing that if it has a sensible chance.
I’ve always been a big reader, as a 7 year old I enjoyed reading the Britannia Encyclopedias my parents bought and every one else ignored. I’m always amazed that what I think are simple tasks most people are amazed that I can do them. I do research first, that’s the key, something people are not willing to do beyond a YouTube video. I just totally remodeled my Fannie Mae house without a single professional, including moving load bearing walls, installing a complete kitchen and heavily modifying three bathrooms. All will permits that passed. I did the research first.
3
The author might be confused about the direction of the effect implied here. It could just be that those who already have exceptional athletic/musical/academic talent end up trying and excelling in more types of sport/instruments/study areas by virtue of having had more innate ability to begin with.
This is not the same as assuming that exposure to a variety of instruments will, in and of itself, make one a better musician. It’s that better musicians might be more likely to have the increased capacity that manifests itself in playing multiple instruments.
203
@Laura, that isn't what he said. if you read to the end of the article, he says:
"That said, just as I don’t plan to push specialization on him, I also don’t mean to suggest that parents should flip to the other extreme and start force-feeding diversification.
If of his own accord our son chooses to specialize early, fine. Both Mozart and Woods’s fathers began coaching their sons in response to the child’s display of interest and prowess, not the reverse.
12
@Rose @Laura
It boils down to finding the kids passions and talents, and when both intersect, then they will become very good at it. For some kids, they find it early on (ex. Tiger), often because they share the same passions as their parents, but it is not always the case, and when parents push, they may get a great 10-year-old prodigy but then teenage years come by and the kids rebel against something they were forced to do.
Most excellent athletes, scientist, musicians, etc don't find their talent and passion immediately, their passion may not be the same as their parents', so they dabble and eventually find the intersection of their passion and talent. I think that unfortunately, most of us don't find that intersection, or if we do, it is not something that we can make money off, and hence why we are not the highly recognized success story of a Roger or a Tiger.
9
@Laura
Innate ability is one thing............The Music itself......is another.
That is, I think, where the Author shows tremendous value: in appreciation. In hearing. In receiving. Better to go outside in the woods. Try to hear a bird sing in the woods. Call on the birds, even if you have to learn their names!
5
I'm grateful that my parents allowed me and my siblings to be ourselves, and not to be hothouse plants forced into some all-consuming activity.
We all went off in different directions, and while our parents encouraged us to have a broad education and required us to take piano lessons, beyond that, they supported us in pursuing the activities that we liked and had talent for. Fortunately, this was before the days of compulsory sports for suburban children. If someone had made me go to soccer or basketball practice, I would have wonder why I was being punished.
I cringe when I hear of tiger mothers or parents who mold their children into sports stars from infancy, as the parents of Tiger Woods and the Williams sisters did.
Sure, there are prodigies. But for every Sarah Chang, whose talent and determination seemed to flow out of her naturally, there's a Ruth Slenczynska, who had a miserable childhood of being forced to practice the piano for hours every day starting at age three.
It seems that the tiger parent model is more about the parent's own ego, as David Epstein implies, than about what is really good for the child.
1
As a dad I always felt me job was to offer up alternatives, not to dictate what to do. Even at a young age my son would make the decision himself. Only rule I had was "once you commit to a sport / team, you got to stick with it for the season and give it your all". Life is about giving your kids a chance to develop according to their own desires and talents and wants, not to live the parents dreams.
I've been a teacher in public schools and I'm about two thirds through my career. In this twenty years I've been struck by one thing. That is, the extent to which adults think of kids as adults.
Kids want to play not work. Kids don't want to focus. Kids want to get excited about something and leave it be when immediate rewards cease. Kids don't understand that if it's due Friday they need to start Monday. Kids are fundamentally different from adults. No one is expecting them to land the plane yet.
As people progress and their brains develop they begin to get the powers of concentration and organization. As kids it's crucial to help them find processes they enjoy. Once the love is there the rest will follow.
636
@Dan Seiden
Agreed. The tension is providing the "practice" necessary for young people to respond to deadlines, limits, and expectations. When those things are overly rigid and unforgiving, it can alienate. However, no boundaries and a "do what you want" logic is also dangerous and problematic. You are not saying that but the tough discernment is that gray area which may not be clear to parents, teachers, and coaches.
I was fortunate, my parents did not have to arrange play-dates for me. I did that myself. And when I knocked on Jack's door to ask: "Can Jack come out and play?" I learned that sometimes, Jack could. And sometimes, he could not. But I dealt with the disappointment and did not place that responsibility on someone else. As a result, I self-soothed when I needed to and dealt with frustrations accordingly which became easier with time. When we take away things like reflection, free time, and exploration, which is your argument, we replace it with control, structure, and over management which is just another way to bring about tension and anxiety later on.
I can take no for an answer. But I also have appreciation (and gratitude) when someone says "yes". Those are two important skills.
51
@Dan Seiden
This comment should be sent to every tiger parent, every starry-eyed educator, and especially every education reform expert who thinks they can transform our schools into universities for the young. Anyone who thinks that rigorous academic standards, incessant testing, and a data approach to education can turn children into self-actualized, highly motivated, hard working proto-adults is sadly mistaken. The average kid sees school as a place to have fun with their friends and begrudgingly sits through classes while frequently daydreaming, and eventually doing the minimum required by their teachers.
Dan, this should be required reading for every teacher training program in the country. It is a huge mistake to conflate the best ways for children to learn with the ways that well educated, professional adults do their work. Kudos my fellow teacher for speaking the truth from experience.
72
@Dan Seiden Wonderful comment, I remember many years ago reading about the Summer Hill school founded by A.S. Neill in England and bursting into tears with longing to have that kind of freedom as a child in school. I would have loved studying with a teacher on subjects I was passionate about. Actually I did have more home freedom than most kids growing up in the fifties. My parents were both artists and there was such a gift that creativity was cheerfully allowed and mildly encouraged, but never dictated in anyway and we were free to draw and write and play outside for hours as much as we pleased, we hardly had any chores and they never cared what I read or if I read. There were many other lacks but I remember telling my therapist that there was not another family I envied because all the families I knew seemed either boring or all rules and regulations, there would have been no time with all those chores to climb trees and read for hours and day dream. I fell in love with Tom Sawyer as a child and though I was a girl I identified with him rather than simpering Becky Thatcher. I like to think that there have been plenty of kids who grew up like Tom and even Huck.
27
This whole article begs the question, what is best for the child/human being the parents are raising? Is it financial success? Is it pursuit of excellence? Is it self fulfillment? Is it strong moral character? Is it happiness?
I believe it is far less important what the child does, how many instruments he/she plays, and far more important why they do it. Does it bring them joy or pride? If excellence is the goal what are they willing to sacrifice to obtain it? If success is the goal are they willing to cheat to obtain it?
I was raised to be a generalist, but with impossible standards of excellence. I could do anything, but I had to be the best at it. This led to lifelong frustration, feelings of self loathing, and yet, an incredible array of interests and experiences as I sought the elusive god given gift that would allow me to achieve absolute superiority.
I raised my own children to hold themselves to high standards in some areas (moral character) and to allow themselves to be mediocre in others (sports). I encouraged them to try a variety of experiences while remaining true to their own moral compass and sense of self. My goal for them is happiness, balance and the satisfaction that comes from being a good person, successful or not.
350
@ML So true. We encouraged our son to try multiple activities and sports. He is now headed for college to study mechanical engineering, continue playing music as a non-music major, possibly will be a walk-on on the downhill ski team if he decides he has enough free time, and is looking forward to continuing both skiing and cross-country running (which, like his proud parent, he is lousy at, but adores). I encouraged him not to sign up for honors college (which would increase his course load substantially) until after his freshman year, again in order to be able to pursue his other interests. He is a happy and well-rounded kid, thank goodness, and is pursuing a career that he is excited about.
My parents meant well, but pushed me endlessly to pursue straight A's and graduate two years early from high school and college, with no real idea of what I wanted to actually do with my life. I ended up with a professional degree that in retrospect was a horrible fit, and have spent most of my life feeling like an underachiever in the workplace - but at least I've been able to find and follow my passions in many other parts of my life. Nobody, and no parents, can ever be perfect.
32
The ability to be happy and support one's own lifestyle without becoming a leech on society. And that does require nudging the value of not giving up and showing commitment to one thing rather than giving up because something has become hard.
8
@ML I appreciate your comments. They're a worthy supplement to Epstein's observations. (It's worth noting that he has a book to sell.)
But what's missing in both is the importance of community: being a successful part of one and devoting one's self to its effective functioning. As I read your comments, for example, I was thinking of traditional Navajo values, which are about being in harmony with the world. In that value system, striving to accumulate wealth is a negative.
5
At our parent teacher meeting in middle school, the science teacher began with telling us that our son was already a wonderful human being and the rest of it was just his discovering what he wanted to do with his life! We were surprised because we thought academic performance was important but the young teacher, wise beyond his years, told us most people don’t focus on the human qualities that our son already displayed! Our son is almost 30 and we see in him what his teacher recognized early on! A science teacher himself at one of the poorest school districts in NYC, his mission to excite students about science, has inspired hundreds of students to unlock their potential and achieve their goals if aiming for a college education (many of these students are the first in their families to even think of college). How do you quantify human-ness?
538
@petey tonei
Not sure how you quantify human-ness, but there is the concept of EQ which, I guess, is the quantification of human-ness (humanity?). My daughter is in kindergarten and we were something similar by her teachers; that she is doing well in school, but also she is just a pleasure to have in class because of her human-ness. I could not have been more proud of her in that moment.
26
@petey tonei
I love reading about your son, it gives me faith in humanity. Kudos on whatever part you played in that outcome.
37
@petey tonei
As a teacher, I agree with the science teacher and congratulate you on raising a son who makes the world a better place!
38
The author's premise is undermined by his presumed optimal outcome. He tries to undercut specialized training by saying that generalist training leads to optimal specialization. His ideal outcome is still clearly "who has done the most in one specific field/domain?" This seems less interesting a point. There may be different paths getting to ones specialty, but once you get there, the "10,000 hrs" is still needed to excel. It would've been more compelling if the author had provided evidence for how a generalist upbringing could lead to a generalist outcome that could objectively surpass the value of specialist outcomes. For example, does a generalist do more social good by spreading ones talent across more people/domains? That would've been interesting. As it stands, it still seems that the author will be disappointed if his son doesn't end up winning a nobel prize for one specific thing, no matter how great his other general contributions could be.
3
@Brian - you said it far more cogently than I could have. Yes!
By focusing on the the very highest achievers the author makes the same mistake as the Tiger types, namely that the large majority of the children, whether driven by Tiger parents or going the Roger route will *not* go on to become among the most recognized, celebrated, or otherwise very highest achieving. Thus, the best research would focus on "the 99%", because that is where your child is almost certainly going to wind up.
Yes, due to your education, wealth and/or connections, there is little risk of them being in the bottom half, but that doesn't mean they will thrive in the top half either.
I ran into a friendly acquaintance at the pool the other day - her child, who is 9 and the same age as my child, was practicing with the swim team. "She works out with the team five days a week and competes every Saturday," she told me proudly. Followed by, "what's your daughter's passion?" Passion? At age 9? I said she does a little bit of this and that, some sports, an instrument, a dance class when it's offered as an after school option...She looked at me sadly and said "Oh, she hasn't found her passion yet. I hope she will." I just sat mute thinking, why? Why does my kid have to do any one thing six days a week at age 9? Why does any child? And I very much question if it's truly the child's passion or simply the child doing what Mommy wants of her (Mom still competes in swim races in her mid-40s).
9
The fact that raising children with the Roger pattern rather than the Tiger pattern is more likely to lead to greater long term success is beside the point. Raising children in the Tiger pattern is a form of "servitude" which is primarily for the benefit of the parents. The Roger pattern gives children the freedom to explore what they really want to do with their lives.
201
@Jay Orchard
You skipped the end quote from Tiger.
2
@Betty Davis
I'm pretty sure Tiger just said he wanted to play golf, not be consumed by it. He trusted his father to use proper judgment.
5
@Jay Orchard By and large when we are still in school, parents control our activities. I see Tiger parenting as presenting children with as many opportunities as possible so that they can have the freedom to explore what they want to do. Perhaps the way it is carried out is misguided, but I see the utility in it. It is a cultural clash here, related to the more conservative Asian cultures where there was (and is) great social pressure for youth to listen to their elders and parents.
Math tutoring and developing mathematical skills can lead to kids thinking that hey, maybe they could work in software or scientific research one day.
People often say music lessons are inaccessible. I think this is true. Instruments are expensive to purchase and maintain. Hey - maybe I could work as a musician one day. Some people do this, some don't. But the choice is there. I'm currently a music teacher but I would have never had that opportunity if my parents had not given it to me.
Parents should be proud of their children and what they can accomplish. I don't think they should force anything on them. But I don't think it's as simple as you think it is. It's definitely not about "servitude".
2
Yes. Many kids are so busy by the time they start high school that there’s no time for them to discover what they really like to do. And you’re not going to be really good at something unless you’re eager to spend time at it.
Sometimes I think I am just a dog who keeps seeing new squirrels.
I ended up at the top of my fields 4 different careers, each time I saw something new "Bright shinny Object" and I dived into to them with whole heart and without fear. Whats the worst that can happen was my central thoughts. Sometimes it just feels like a new challenge other time just something new to learn.
to quote Oscar Wilde "Life is to important to take seriously"
Although the title suggests that being a prodigy isn’t the goal, the author emphasizes that generalizing early on is the path to climbing to the top - as if raising a kid to be number one is the main goal of the parent. Generalizing early on is praised as the better path to number one instead of for its deeper benefits: discovering passions and talents, building skills you will use throughout your life, connecting with others, and learning how to be a good person. Not everyone can or should be number one. As parents, we must love and honor the child we are raising for who they are and help them discover their path and passions so that they can lead happy, healthy, productive and meaningful lives. I feel saddened for kids raised by parents who put so much emphasis on being number one.
2
@Pam Bassuk - exactly! It's like he wants the same outcome, but also wants to be the good guy.
2
Yes! As someone who has had more than one career, done well in and enjoyed all of them, I find attempts to push kids in one direction troubling. It is important to offer children/youth a variety of experiences. It is also important to require them to take courses in areas that they think that they don't like. Many of us found that something we viewed as unappealing, even feared, turned out to be ok and sometimes even a new love.
As I finished the article, it struck me what a privileged area this discussion rests in (I say that judging it neither good nor bad). For much of human history and in many places even today, folks simply follow in their parents' footsteps. For others, especially those with less educational opportunity and few skills, simply getting a job - any job - is the goal. It is a privilege, indeed, to be in a situation where parents can guide their child either through a focused career path or through a generalist adventure on the way to discovering themselves.
228
@Anne-Marie Hislop
Thinking back to my younger days, I remember the numerous careers in which I was interested and began to explore on my own. My actual career has been anything but linear and, yet, what I learned in that exploration has turned out to be key to whatever success I have had. I learned that no knowledge is ever wasted, even if I did not know when I gained the knowledge when in the future it would be valuable.
10
@Anne-Marie Hislop
Profound and important comment. Thank you.
10
Many a “child prodigy” disappears into obscurity when they become adults. How many times have you seen a story of a 5 year old painter or musician that bested adults then they are never heard of again.
1
Interesting and nice article. But I think you could have chosen a better musical example. Vivaldi’s orchestra?? What about Arnold Schoenberg, a real musical genius (even if you don’t like his music, which I don’t particularly) and a serious painter as well as composer, which is also true of Joni Mitchell, another great musician. Or Lera Auerbach, a celebrated contemporary composer and poet who is also a serious visual artist. And many others, certainly.
One of my best friends in grade school started out on violin but, as she said, "I couldn't master the squeaks." She switched to cello, on which she was a lot less squeaky, but just average. In middle school, she took up the trumpet, and within a year was first trumpet in the school orchestra (besting a boy whose father was a world-famous wind instructor at the Eastman). She ended by getting a full four-year scholarship to the Eastman School of Music--on trumpet. How will you know, not only what your best skills are, but also what you really like, if you don't keep experimenting? The "prodigy" path is like the gotta-send-the-kid-to-an-ivy path--easy and uncomplicated for the parents, who live with the illusion that someday they can stop worrying about the kid because he/she has found the perfect, secure path in life. It don't happen.
305
@Quite Contrary It's called "shifting registers" and is used by, as well as understood by, those who are secure enough in their language skills not to be hypercorrectional. Given that I have a Ph.D. in English, I think I have a reasonable sense about when to play around for emphasis.
19
@Oriflamme
There's an implication here that somehow the trumpet is easier than the violin or the 'cello, but it isn't. All the instruments have their own nasty and special 'squeaks.'
3
@Watchful
No, there is not. Just a direct implication that this particular, individual young lady's abilities proved best suited to the trumpet rather than the two stringed instruments.
'Squeaks' are indeed a challenge in all three instruments (and many more).
The point, of course, is that her story is a prime real world example of the potential in "playing" (trying/taking) new paths... diversification over niche during development and beyond.
Bravo to her!
6
It should be noted that many virtuoso also have perfect pitch which is not a talent but something you are born with.
3
An important point about childhood gets lost in conversations about how to spur small children towards greatness.
The purpose of childhood is childhood. Exploration. Emotion. Sensory experiences. Joy and abject misery. Learning. Gathering a sense of self day by day.
Yes, I suppose some children are born great, and some children have greatness thrust upon them. But raising your most-likely-to-be average child with the dream of creating a Roger or a Tiger is a fool's errand.
And pressing children to do things for which they are not ready is akin to pulling out baby teeth to rush along a fully natural process. So, speaking as an educator and a mother, I'd ask us adults to not forget one core truth:
The child's purpose is to be a child.
8
Between the lines there's another issue: the assumption that the reason to encourage children to explore different areas of interest is to find the optimum combination that will lead a child to become superior in some field in the future.
As if there is a big chance of becoming Tiger woods, Roger Federer or a Nobel Prize winner
That business of constant comparison can ruin enjoyment of the process. How many dropped out of a sport or learning an instrument, or whatever pursuit they might have enjoyed for life because they learned to hate being judged?
274
Or had a bad coach or teacher. Not a lack of interest. With children always fairness counts. Not politics. Dad coach for example.
15
@cheryl
I found the point of the article to be more about letting your kids explore different areas in order to find what they love and can thrive doing, not necessarily being superior in a field. Clearly the examples held up are famous people, but not all of us expect our kids to be superstars - success and happiness are not the same thing as fame or ranking in a field.
11
@cheryl I do think you've hit on something here but one Issue that causes kids to drop out is.... learning curve. Very, very few people sit down in front of a piano and wham! They're playing a Beethoven concerto. Same with most sports. Most kids have to practice before they get to the point of enjoying a pursuit for its own sake. When my daughter took piano lessons, her teacher taught her -- and all of her students -- basic theory. When I told other parents this, they practically accused me of being... a tiger mom. "I just want my child to learn to play," they said. Their children weren't expected (or prodded) to practice, or pick up any helpful theory (chord progressions). They didn't make progress and quickly quit. My daughter isn't van Cliburn -- that wasn't the point. She can play for her own enjoyment; she'll have music-making as a gift throughout her life. Somewhere there's happy medium between expecting a child to learn via happy-go-lucky osmosis and expecting some level of commitment. Not saying I have the answer here -- I don't.
13
I am one of these wanderers through the intellectual world and am about to hit the top of the ladder in my field. I actually don’t think I would’ve gotten there had I set out to do so at an early age. I see younger colleagues who have done nothing except what they do now and are not particularly well rounded or curious. Curiosity I think is the key to it all....being curious will open door.
216
@Bismarck You nailed it: Curiosity is the driver of success -- and a fulfilled life. Why is that so? How does that work? Does it have to be that way? The world is full of wonderment; a curious person wants to engage with it. (By the way, I too am one of these wanderers and was ridiculed and criticized for being directionless and unfocused in my early adult years. Now in my fifties, I too am near the top of my field.) Thank you, Bismarck.
16
@Bismarck
one of my favorite quotes ever-
"Curiosity is the cure for boredom. There is no cure for curiosity . . ."
4
@Bismarck Exactly. The new priest at my Episcopal church bragged that he got into med school before he went to Seminary and has a Ph.D. but he's not curious and it makes him a horrible listener. I'll take curiosity over advanced degrees/smarts any day.
Just leave the kids alone, for Pete's sake. Why do modern parents have to interfere so much with the lives of their kids? The kids will develop interests on their own, and parents just have to support those. Some interests will be dropped, and that's ok. Nothing is worse than a parent who insists the kid keep up with piano long after the kid has started hating it. As kids grow and experience new things, new interests will crop up. What they're interested in a 7 might be discarded by 17. Just let them experience life as it comes to them. Besides, most kids will never be a Tiger Woods. Leave them be.
300
I mostly agree with you, Ms. Pea. Quite often it seems that forcing one thing or another on children is rooted in vanity on the part of the parents, a way to prove their parenting success, a bragging point at the country club. (Tangential side-note; in Japan it’s considered ultimately vulgar to praise your children’s accomplishments to others).
That said, I do insist that my sons persevere with mastering an instrument because for one, I believe that music is one of the few magically mysterious binding forces of the human race. It’s a gift to all of us that transcends language.
Also, it’s something they’ll always have for themself, that can bring comfort and clear solitude. Or the opportunity to thrash it out with dirtbag best friends in the garage.
It doesn’t matter to me which instrument they choose, because they’ll only really extend themselves if they enjoy it.
Luckily my younger one has latched onto the piano with a great teacher, has glimpsed what’s to come, happily practices every day and can feel his own progress.
My big one is still figuring it out, but knows how important I believe it is and had accepted it.
I haven’t raised them within the confines of a religion, or an unbending rule that they must immediately attend college unless they undertake a course they’re inspired by, but this one is important.
I’m not forcing it, but strenuously encouraging. Because I wish my parents hadn’t let me quit. I’m no Mozart or Roger, but lament the lost years.
17
@Ms. Pea
I agree with you about kids developing interests. The only comment I have is that the parents role is to encourage the kids to try new things rather than waiting for the kid to suggest things. So by all means suggest the kid try an instrument, or try sports, or try drawing, or try swimming, or whatever, tell them it is okay to try it and decide they don't want to do it, but encourage them. There was a long term study done of gifted kids, and one of the things they found out with the difference between blue collar parents and white collar parents was that blue collar parents expected the kid to ask for things or teachers in school to suggest things, rather than encouraging kids to try new things. My parents were white collar, but they never encouraged us to try things, and as a result we didn't do things assuming our parents didn't want us to do them. The key to parenting I believe is encourage the kids to try things, not because they will lead to riches, but rather for the experience. Our son started music early on violin, and it was actually at his request (he had taken a kinder music class), and we told him he could quit the instrument if he felt he no longer wanted to do it, all we asked is he finish out the current cycle with his teacher, to make sure it wasn't short term frustration, and that held all the way through pre college programs, conservatory and now grad school.
10
@Paul Downie
My parents didn't let me quit piano. I hated my teacher and I hated practicing and for that matter piano. Now, 15 years later I love that I can still play carols over the holidays or spend a rainy Sunday practicing a bit. I'm never going to be great or even very good, but I like that I have a little know-how.
17
Just a little free advice from a grandmother! neither Tiger moms or Roger dads will make the biggest impression on your child.Hug him often, laugh with him, play games and importantly read every book to him that the two of you will enjoy.I have been fortunate to live to see my grandchildren grow up.I have enjoyed it all but when the last grandchild said, You don’t have to read this book to me, how about my reading it to you I cried.I loved their books-I hope they continue to value them.
10
The message of this article is excellent, and also reassuring. My 12-year-old son is a dabbler and we've done our best to accommodate his waxing and waning interests as time and money permit.
The thing that really bothered me about this piece, though, was the repeated association of mothers with the wrong/bad parenting behavior and fathers with the better one. Why say "Tiger moms" and then focus on the parenting style of Tiger Wood's dad, but then describe "Roger dads" as superior? The author did this throughout the article, always putting the mother on the unenlightened, overbearing side. Usually, major parenting choices are made together. So I believe you meant to talk about "Tiger parents" and "Roger parents". This Roger mom didn't need that negative stereotype of mothers first thing in the morning.
307
@Liz
Tiger Mom's does not refer to Tiger Woods. It is a term used to describe women singularly focused on the success of a child. Someone who constantly pushes children in one direction. It was a title of a book that promotes this system. The most sullen child I ever saw was the child of a Tiger Mom that worked in my research lab. That was 40 years ago I still wonder if he thrived.
7
@Liz
Yes, I agree. It was confusing and seemed like he was mixing the stereotyped Asian "tiger mom" with the parenting of Tiger Woods.
5
@Liz
Don’t feel so bad Liz. It seems to be the thing these days, and especially in the Times opinion pages, to make sweeping general anecdotal disparagement pitting male and female against each other. Just a few weeks ago, in these pages, I learned how inadequate my gender is in regards to house work!
3
Maybe there is another approach. Rather than wondering how you (the author) should exert your influence on the development of the child, focus on giving him or her a balanced exposure to a normal childhood. Then let him or her evolve in the direction that suits him or her. Look and listen, encourage, but it is not your job to shape their life, nor is it your right.
296
@T. M. Lawrence I think that's exactly what the author was suggesting: giving his son a balanced life and letting him evolve in the direction that suits him, or as the author concludes, providing a "Saturday experiment" kind of childhood. The author was not suggesting that it was his job to shape his son's life, as you suggest. Quite the opposite. He was suggesting letting his son zigzag through life, trying out different things.
15
@T. M. Lawrence- What is this "normal" childhood you speak of? I am 66 and have not witnessed what I used to consider a "normal" childhood in some time.
3
@T. M. Lawrence
"Normal" childhood?
You mean unstructured play, fun in school, and idle time to think, to create, to succeed and to fail, to wander with friends in the woods, to take risks without knowing it, to get dirty and bloody, and to never know the fatal attraction of the smart phone?
That ship has not only sailed, but it was lost in a storm many years ago.
7
What Mr. Epstein's essay suggests is that openness to many varieties of experience and types of learning generates the strength of character and suppleness of mind enabling a person recognize their are many kinds of success that may be pursued in many ways. Recognizing this is likely to generate a significantly richer life than one confined to a narrow channel, especially when that channel is imposed parentally or institutionally rather than chosen. One likely element in such an an enriched life is the ability to engage meaningfully with people different than oneself. That ability is currently in woefully short supply and much needed in this republic.
3
A study by the American Bar Association some years ago indicated that middle of the rankings law students had the most high level success - as judges, law partners and scholars. The report speculated that it was because they did things other than study - went to the pub, played rugby, hiked, and laughed.
As a violinist and educator, there is another phenomenon I call the tyranny of talent. Some kids are naturally good at certain things. It might be facility on the fiddle at age 5 or being 5' 10" in 5th grade and well-coordinated. Our culture sets a debilitating expectation that such children are obligated to pursue or maximize that ability. It can be a curse. One needn't play the violin because of musical talent or play basketball because of height and athleticism.
Talent should not be a life sentence.
556
@Barking Doggerel
I totally agree, as someone said quite nicely, just because someone has a gift doesn't mean they are obliged to do it, because they have it. Sadly, a lot of parents see a gift in something as an opportunity for them to fulfil their dreams, whether it is playing a major league sport or in music. The idea of 'wasting a gift' is inherently broken, having someone do something because they have a talent for it but they don't enjoy it is wasting both the gift, and the kid's life. The other funny thing about gifts is sometimes they manifest themselves in different ways, that aptitude for the piano might translate into something quite different.
As far as your first observation, in studies that has been born out. For example, there is something known as the Ivy League Syndrome, where the kids coming out of these schools are perceived to have this notion that simply bc they achieved like that, they are owed something, and there are actually negative correlations with the 4.0 GPA/High Sat/etc kids. On the contra is the "Avis" syndrome, where kids not in the stratosphere come out and do really well (as in the old Avis commercial, 'we are #2, so we try harder'). Those "avis" kids tend to have experienced life more, done other things, and the kid who went to a state school with a B average and belonged to a frat, might have a lot more insight on doing something than the 4.0 type focused only on grades and such.
23
@Barking Doggerel
Many tall people I know can't stand basketball, having been practically forced to play it by parents and coaches with the "but you are so tall, you'll be great".
18
@Barking Doggerel
Well, if I recall correctly I was the exact middle of my law school graduating class and am more than satisfied with how my career has played out so far.
10
As someone who studied classical music seriously from age 6 to age 18 during the 1970s and 80s, I can tell you that my experience of prodigies has been that most do not fully live up to their perceived potential. There are lot more Bobby Fishers in this world than there are Mozarts.
And the children I knew who had been singled out for their talent very early on were less well adjusted socially (because their parents were afraid of them having too much contact with "normal" kids), more uncertain about their futures (since they had to succeed at this one thing), and less willing to take risks (because no one ever let them, and so much of their self-image was tied to approval from others). Their abilities were enviable, but their lives were not. And this really had mostly to do with pressure from the outside, so perhaps things have changed some in the intervening decades. It can be a frightful thing when parents start to see their children as assets rather than people.
7
(Just to preface, I have 2 kids:
1 generalist & 1 specialist.)
The reason so many parents and kids are trying to be specialists is that being a generalist is no longer valued by colleges and employers—or by our society at large.
When I was applying to college it was important to be well-rounded, a “Renaissance man.” Few knew what they wanted to do in life. Now, college admissions officers tell me that they do not want kids who are well-rounded and interested in many things. They want kids who are the best at one thing. They view well-rounded kids as lacking commitment.
This attitude has become so pervasive that one of my 15 year old students told me that when he wanted to learn the clarinet, the guidance counselor at the high school insisted that he not “waste time” on that. The guidance counselor told the kid he would not get very good at clarinet since he had not started when much younger, and added that trying a new thing would not help him get into a good college.
The notion that everything a kid does and learns should be to maximize the chance of getting into college is detestable enough.
The idea that a 15 year old is all washed up and can’t hope to master something new, and so therefore should not even start something new, just takes my breath away.
1035
@Patricia
There are still many school systems and universities that nurture and prize the well-rounded. Unsurprisingly, these are where are most successful leaders come from. Unfortunately, they are mostly private schools and universities, so families without independent wealth must rely on scholarships. Specialization may be a more sure path to the upper middle class, but the well-rounded always end up at the top of the heap.
One way to do something about it is to get involved in local schools and push back against the specialization / STEM attitude you decry.
33
@Patricia This resonates with me. I am good at learning things in general, some better than others. I end up being above average in many of the things I set my mind to and spend time on mastering, but I have never had a natural affinity or talent for anything. But I know society values the exceptional - above average is not good enough these days in this competitive world.
27
@Patricia: Also worth noting that many celebrated "experts" have been selected by the system to be one-dimensional. It is worth looking at the public disgrace of Ben Carson's recent testimony before a House subcommittee. Apparently being a talented surgeon does not require curiosity or any knowledge of the organization one leads.
If you are really good at what you do, you will also be asked to lead, administer and teach in that space. If we select only for the ultra-specialized, we are probably selecting for those who can literally do nothing else.
51
I wanted sports to be part of my son's experience for many obvious reasons. Soccer was the sport I chose for him mainly because he could start early, be part of a team, and learn great body and foot coordination. He was more of a daisy picker at 4 and never really excelled at soccer and at one point around 10 wanted to quit. I said ok, you can quit soccer, but you must pick another sport - dad's prerogative to push something that i considered valuable. He remained in soccer and had some good life experiences that you can see reflected in his approach to academics and social interactions. He benefited from my push - no regrets from him or me. Not all children have that innate spark - some need parental pushing, I believe my son was one of those. btw, he later, around 14, quit soccer and became a good tennis player and played 3 different musical instruments and will graduate with an engineering degree this year. He has not really excelled at anything in particular - but is very good at all he does. Maybe the diverse background will be the grist for something big in his future.
1
I think the one element not mentioned is that while the child can grow up being taught that it's perfectly acceptable to sample different interests, but they must also learn that at a certain point, any interest is going to become more difficult and require hard work to advance. We as parents must teach them the difference between the loss of desire in an interest and the loss of desire to work hard to master an interest. I watch my 3 year old son building blocks, for example, and while things are going well, he'll spend an hour building. One crash, and his emotions take over and he's ready to give up. I have to be there to help him learn that one crash doesn't mean he failed, and we can try again.
22
But not everybody is a Roger Federer, so you become a jack of all trades and a master of none. The unanswered question is what is the goal in life? Is it to be well adjusted and happy, or is it to make a contribution to the advancement of humanity? Are contributions to society made by people who are self satisfied or by people who are driven? When you come to the end of your life and look back what will be more important - accomplishment or happiness? If you were not born with the talent of Federer it is an interesting dilemma.
9
@W.A. Spitzer But why must everyone strive to be a master, when by definition most will fail? What's so terrible about the small everyday achievements that average people experience?
That's not to say that, in any endeavor, we shouldn't have high expectations of ourselves and have standards, but could it be a mistake to try to identify a one best way to live a life?
Perhaps being well-adjusted and content DOES contribute to the advancement of humanity just as much as drive does, in its own way. Most of us will make collaborative contributions to the general welfare, and we should be fine with that. It is not necessary to attract the attention of millions in order to lead a satisfying and productive life.
16
@TuraLura.....But is there anything more human than to strive and fail? I spent my career in drug research, and I have been ever drawn to the final scenes of the movie Amadeus and the closing scene where Salieri in his final days in the sanitarium is going around and absolving people of their sin of mediocracy.
@W.A. Spitzer
To quote John Maynard Keynes, "In the long run, we will all be dead" (He was talking about economists who said you needed to let things play out over the long term, that the Great Depression would end when it wanted to in the long run..ignoring the misery of the present). When you reach the end of your life, hopefully accomplishment will equal happiness, that while you might not have cured cancer, you can look back and realize that in being happy you left things behind, left gifts for the people around you. At the end of the day, if I die knowing that I tried to be a good person (often failing), if I can look back and realize I have helped other people, in whatever ways, if I have good memories, if I have lived to see my son grow into a good person who is happy with himself and his place in the world, I will feel like I have accomplished something.
The idea that we are here to 'drive humanity forward' is thus a fraught question, because what does that mean? Do you need to create a new kind of music, do you need to cure a disease, stop a war, to drive humanity forward? Humanity is driven forward by accomplishments of all kind, great or small, and is driven forward quite honestly a lot more by the small things because they are more numerous. Not to mention that driven people often have pushed humanity back, few people would say Hitler or Stalin or the robber barons of the 19th century pushed humanity forward per se.
There are lots of advantages to being a generalist. But there must still be high expectations and standards.
4
My father never even made it to high school and my mother only a high school grad. They knew nothing of specialization and my only encouragement was to get an education, otherwise leaving me to my own devices. Thank goodness as my childhood was carefree and some of the best times of my life.
18
@Jobie-won kenobi Yes! This is spot on!
Before having children, I asked an experienced father how becoming a parent had changed his life. His answer surprised me at the time. He said, “it allowed me to finally forgive my own parents”. The implicit message: parenting is a slog and there is no one right way. My advice to the author and to all new parents: be kind to yourself as well as your child.
47
@Edward Cohen The implicit message I hear is, “I hope in time my child will forgive me for committing the sins of my father.”
1
@Alicia Well put. My observation is that adults who do not have, or do not yet have children, define themselves largely in relation to their own parents, with the attendant continuing adolescent conflicts. Once their own kids come, there is a paradigm shift of focus, along with a more sympathetic attitude towards one's own parents. As they say, "what goes around comes around".
1
One thing a specialist loses out on is the experience of learning something new. As a generalist, I've often gone through the awkward beginner stages attempting things that interest me. I can accept being bad at something, because I know I will improve with practice.
That ability to adapt to new and changing demands is extremely useful in the world today.
13
@JB Ah, but is it better to be very good at one important thing, or moderately successful at everything? What is the goal of life?
I feel vindicated as a father, thank you!
I was appalled by the principal of my son's high school who told a roomful of 8th grader parents that our kids needed to know what they wanted to study in college before they registered for their first semester of high school classes.
I felt, and still do, that high school should be a smorgasbord. Dabble, learn about yourself and your likes, dislikes, strengths, and weaknesses. If one gets out of high school with a grasp of those four things, they are in a solid starting position, whether the next step is college or the workforce.
35
@Tim...I agree and I disagree. What is wrong with having a goal in your head and at the same time being open to other ideas?
1
@Tim: [ our kids needed to know what they wanted to study in college before they registered for their first semester of high school classes. ]
This is why few have friends outside of their chosen fields; they have nothing in common to talk about.
1
My son tested on the math genius level when we were trying to get him into a private pre-K through 8th grade school in New Orleans. In pre-k the thing he was most interested in was constructing stuff out of wood using a hammer and nails.
Fast forward to now and he’s got a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from a top 5 university and doing things my English major mind can’t grasp.
In between he was a long haired skate boarder who was into Nirvana, the Ramones and Rancid; a nationally ranked fencer with unmatched fast tick reflexes, and a rock climber, mountain biker and skier, who skis double blacks at Taos with aplomb.
My wife and I let this kid follow his interests fueled by his inner drive for excellence we couldn’t and didn’t teach. We gave unconditional love, and all the time and money we could spare.
We now have a new grandson just over a year old and all indications are he will be raised the same way.
32
Add to Roger knowledge the well researched work on kids maturing at different ages and the damage done by both forcing a child to specialize in sports he is excelling at before puberty but also the damage done by ignoring slower kids who might become the real starts when body and mind catch up.
Kids should do lots of things, so they can choose what they like best for later specialization. But also because their future health and happiness may well depend upon all of the non-specialist activities they can enjoy to maintain equilibrium as they climb the spiral stairs to success in their chosen field.
I play 'generalist' tennis with a gang of duffers and occasionally a youngster ranked #25 in the country shows up for a lesson. We watch enraptured. But what I really like is when he and coach play soccer with the tennis ball. From the skill set it's clear that the kid is not a one sport phenomenon---they're doing it right. Doubtless he'll grow into a fine tennis player (already is) with Roger's famous footwork and stamina thanks to his other interests.
And yet specialization seems to be the way of the world....greater specialization for greater success. Roger, please don't retire--we need you!
6
I have been saddened by the increasing focus on learning specific job skills in universities. The US is abnormal in the global higher ed community in that most students (outside of engineering schools) are expected to pursue a range of subjects within liberal arts program to learn how to think and solve problems... not perform pre-defined tasks.
The problem in the US is that we've allowed liberal arts degrees to become devalued because they simply aren't rigorous enough. If you want to be a communications major, no problem. But, you should know some chemistry, some genetics, some advanced math, and some history.
If you want to be a chemist, also fine. But you should study the original science (philosophy), history, and yes, communications. And throw in some music while you're at it!
I disagree with Epstein with regards to music. I know many professional musicians, and aside from the fact that they almost all started playing the piano as their first instrument, they specialized pretty early on their preferred instrument. You're certainly not going to be as good a violinist if you start at age 13 than if you start as 6; the same goes with piano.
5
@BrooklynBond: When I was teaching on the college level, I got the feeling that many students were there simply to be trained, not to be educated. They balked at learning anything that did not lead directly to their vocational goals.
Since I left academia, the colleges I taught at have added new majors that are designed to create students for specific jobs, further encouraging that mindset.
I'm old enough to remember when companies hired liberal arts grads and trained them in-house or paid for them to earn an MBA at night.
But in the 1980s, I started doing informational interviews at about a dozen companies in the Twin Cities, and I talked to mid-level managers, hired between the 1950s and the 1970s, who had majored in every conceivable subject as undergraduates. They told me ruefully that their companies were now hiring only business majors, preferably those with a specialty like finance or marketing, with extra points for having an MBA.
Maybe this is what is wrong with American business today. The business majors hired in the 1980s are now in their prime middle management years, but their only so-called "education" has been in how to improve returns to shareholders by any means necessary, no matter who gets hurt.
I think that parents can introduce children to many things, and then children can follow their own inclinations.
When I was 4, I saw a piano in someone's house, fell in love with it, and begged my parents for lessons. I've played piano all my life.
My memory of kindergarten is of the colors we dyed Easter eggs. Co!or and art have been a major part of my life.
In high school, I wondered why I had to take social studies and history, when I had always hated those subjects. (Ken Burns' films helped with that later.)
I think children often know what they like at a young age. I think those interests should be encouraged, while also introducing children to other areas of possible interest.
9
@Cindy
In my experience children don't know what they want at a young age - and they are rarely consistent about it even when they say they know. What often happens is that they parents are behind the scenes playing the kid like a marionette.
1
@Amy: Not always true. I know a man who wanted to be a dancer from the first time his parents took him to see The Nutcracker--and he did become a dancer. I know others whose early talent for drawing led them to careers in the visual arts. Some strong talents do manifest themselves at an early age.
@Amy
I believe the saying goes that what you love as a child, you love throughout your life.
My son sat and played with my calculator at age 3. He is a math whiz working now in that field!
When I was an undergrad music major, a violinist from China gave a solo concert at my college. Afterwards, a few music students took him to the cafeteria because he wanted to have an American student cafeteria experience.
During dinner, he told us he’d been playing the violin since he was a young child and showed talent. He confided that he was very sad that he didn’t know how to do anything else, and he wished his family hadn’t pushed him so hard.
27
Contrary to the usual story, the orchestra that Vivaldi led was not composed of the girls attending the orphanage school. The orchestra was assembled by the citizens of Venice to benefit the orphanage. The musicians were all professionals and all women, which was remarkable in itself.
9
@Bill Lovallo
To paraphrase Disney, it's a man's world, after all...
And yes, what was that weird reference about orphaned daughters of Venice's sex industry? Plopped into the middle of this bizarre soliloquy as the sole mention of women as anything other than the conveyors of sons, it sticks out like a sore thumb, apropos to zilch.
The unstated fervent wish of this father seems to be that his progeny be "exceptional", and he doesn't care in what field of endeavor that happens, as long as they are not ordinary. There's also the clear belief that he, not the mother of this child, is the influence that matters. His wife is mentioned exactly once. How unspeakably sad!
Epstein's drooling hero worship of sports savants does not bode well for his children's development as healthy, well-loved individuals, whatever their talents or choices. They are obviously stand-ins for his own lofty ambitions, apparently corralled into writing as an unsatisfying substitute for physical feats. Aside from a creative graphic, this piece reeks of sweaty jock straps and the male ego in full flower, having little to do with parenting or prodigies or wisdom. Frankly, I find his attitude thoroughly revolting.
The professional world REALLY does not want generalists; not sure it's a blessing to steer a child in that way.
Source: am a generalist who has struggled my entire life to gain professional traction. (NB, not blaming the world for this, I should have realized earlier that specialization is what employers want.)
8
@Mikey
The professional world that you accurately describe is missing out on a lot of talent. I was for many years a manager in high tech companies, and I had to make an effort to draw out the hidden talent in candidates who might appear less-than-stellar on paper. Some of my hires went on to surpass me and became important contributors and leaders. All they needed was a chance to emerge.
We are not doing children (or society) any favors by pushing them toward success, or by selecting only the assertive "winners".
11
@MikeG, this is a fairly recent thing, right? Oracle hired me 30 years ago with no tech background and trained me for a highly technical role (stupidly, I quit after one year b/c the job was pointing me towards narrow specialization and I wanted to remain a generalist 🙄!). Now they only want to hire someone who has basically already been doing the job (somewhere else).
The ideal is probably somewhere in the middle. Young people *do* need to devote themselves to become really good at doing something particular (but not with a oppressive Earl Woods push), and employers need to take on the harder job of actually getting to know candidates and their capabilities and allowing them to develop and grow on the job.
A "generalist" with measurable 'proficiencies' playing baseball as well as basketball, and running 'track,' it has now become clear to me that, though 'having' but 5 feet and 10 inches, basketball is 'best.'
Whereas I come to this conclusion 'having' 70 years, and with but 5 feet and 8 & 1/2 inches 'left' of me, perhaps I should have winnowed out the baseball and track tracks --and much sooner 'specialized' in 'pounding down' growth nutrients in singular pursuit of a career in basketball.
Then again … it 'turns out' that none of the 'measures' of my sports "proficiencies" were 'all that deep' anyway -- if I can believe what I see of track, baseball and basketball professionals on the 13" Motorola T.V. that has served me so well for so long.
1
As a former recording producer and A+R manager, I can tell you that prodigies are nothing special in the music world. I have worked with several, and almost all of them stopped playing music for various reasons before reaching 30. Visit pre-ed conservatories and you will see hordes of little children who cannot even reach the pedals without extra soles, pounding out Mozart and Beethoven concertos by the dozens.
I know a few prodigies from my own conservatory training period who got bored after playing concertos with several major orchestras, (what challenge is left for me they said?), and they then went on to study at NASA or MIT's mathematics department.
Others became sick of the really terrible life soloists lead with constant travel, stress, and several hours a day every day of the week practicing all alone in a studio.
Enjoying a life like that as a soloist requires MUCH more than just being a prodigy with fingers - you have to be made for it and a little abnomal in your social life as well - to make it work.
Any parents pushing their child to take this route should stop dreaming about things they know nothing about - and let their children develop healthily and happily without pressure.
If there is a Steven Hawking or Mozart in them, this will certanly come out all by itself without their parent's 'assistance'.
56
I think the article has some interesting points. But if dads are finally going to weigh in on parenting, I encourage them to be extra attentive to sexism and heternormativity (and, well, privilege in general) when they do so.
18
@Jo
What do you mean, “finally”? Some men are deeply involved in raising children.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Roger has a higher CQ (Creative Quotient) than Tiger.
Creative people are less inclined to follow the straight and narrow path to a single career and may be experts in more than one field, always challenging the status quo.
16
Excellent article, and the portion about Oliver Smithies had me laughing out loud. My husband is a research scientist at NIH. He spends a good chunk of his Saturdays and Sundays pawing through virus sequences on his computer. Whenever I ask him what he hopes to discover, he always says "you never know until you look, and it's fun to look at all this raw data!"
32
@Chris, My father is an NIH research scientist, too, and has the same approach as yours!
5
The gendering and heteronormativity implied in this article's subhetting ("What 'Roger' dads to better than Tiger moms ever will") is really unfortunate. Not only does it indict women as being overbearing and makes men look better by comparison, it suggests that households have one parent of each gender. By relying on trenchant gender and sexual norms to make an argument, the author unwittingly points to the real problem: they ways in which our societal understanding of parenting and of childhood are deeply intertwined with deeply gendered expectations of what parents and families look like. Perhaps tackling these expectations is really the place to start when considering how to raise better children.
112
I also found the gendering deeply offensive. it's not even supported by the examples given. Surprised NYT was ok with this title.
4
@Maya As explained in other replies to commenters who misunderstood use of the term “Tiger Mom”. “Tiger Mom” is a term originated by a book written Yale professor Amy Chau’s that resulted in a lot of debate and controversy. The term has nothing to do with Tiger Woods. Regardless, I it was a regrettable and confusing choice to include the term “Tiger Mom” in an article that compared and contrasted the parenting style / patterns experienced by Tiger Woods and Roger Federer. I also agree that Mr. Epstein’s point of view, rooted in traditional gender stereotypes of parents, as well as his framing his examples “Roger Dad” and “Tiger Mom” do a disservice to his argument. In using Tiger Woods’s as one of his two examples of parenting styles, he should have avoided using the confusing and controversial term “Tiger Mom” anywhere in this article. And by choosing to call himself a “Roger Dad” to describe his parenting style, he opened a (gender-free) Pandora’s Box of criticism that ultimately obscured the point of his argument.
4
@Mayaj
An unfortunate title but this article is not about how to raise better children but the merits of specialization over experimentation. The author doesn’t
need to model all permutations of parental roles to get his point across. In fact he mused if he would be overbearing. Lighten up or the backlash of Trumpian discord we are suffering through will continue.
1
Interesting article and I agree with the thesis, but I have to comment on the headline. Why was it set up as dads vs moms, especially when his two main example (Tiger Woods and Mozart) involve fathers?
81
@Anne Day
"Tiger Mom", because of the book by the same name, has come to represent the kind of parenting we are talking about, pushing a kid to do this and do that, follow the right path, obsess about a focused goal, etc. Obviously, there are obsessed parents of both genders, sometimes the dad is a push them into this and only this and the mom is more laid back, sometimes they both are crazy. Speaking from a personal perspective, there are cultural elements at work here, with a son who is a serious music student/musician who attended one of the premiere pre college programs, among Asians it often was the mom who was the active "pushee", and from what friends have told me that is cultural, that moms are expected to be the prime motivator of the kids (In earlier generations, it would have been the nagging Jewish mother stereotype). Tiger Mom has come to be synonymous with pushy parent, in any event, in common parlance.
5
Generally agree and raised my kids this why, which is why I find the gender specific terms annoying. "Roger dad" and "Tiger mom". The terms may be a clever device for an article but in reality create a gender division that may not exist.Plenty of mom's out there follow the generalist path for their children, and plenty of dad's push hard on one path, and via versa.
53
@a Roger mom I agree! In fact, I happen to know more dads than moms who push their children toward narrow paths, particularly in sports. That's just my experience, and I doubt there is a gender divide at all. It seems to me more of a personality trait.
7
From here on I will foster my son's love of watching inane youtube videos and Minecraft. "The child's desire to play" is clearly there for "Saturday morning experiments" with his video games. May it lead to something other than obesity!
12
Ha! We’re living the same life, brother.
I apologized over dinner to my nine year old last night for having shot down his mention the other day on the school run of people making money these days as streamers and game creators.
I realized after the fact that the worst thing I did was discourage him from believing that he can do anything he puts his mind to. I was the self-righteous old man saying to this brilliant, imaginative child, “you can’t do it”, like my dad unwittingly did to me years ago. He had no idea how he took the wind out of my sails.
My poorly-made comment to him was rooted in some belief that you’re not going to make money playing Fortnite, and you need to get a real job and work hard.
So after a good look at myself in the bathroom mirror;
A) I don’t actually know that that’s not true, for at 43 I’m practically a dinosaur in the 9 year-old’s digital age.
B) More importantly, that was some of the worst parenting I’ve done, and I’ve done some pretty ordinary parenting. Broke one of my own rules. Don’t ever tell your child who adores you that he’s not capable. Because from your mouth, it’s gospel.
He might not become an NBA star or a formula one driver, or a classical virtuoso. Then again he might. But if you tell him he can’t, he will almost definitely stop trying.
It is sad that we have to have an article like this advising parents to provide supportive encouragement for their children to discover their own interests and talents. That's what always used to happen.
Epstein focuses on athletics and music, but the same is true about any area of interest. Rabid parents start trying to ram their kids into engineering or medicine careers from the time they are four. it is sick and sad, not to mention psychologically damaging. And woe to the kids that resist! Parents come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Parents should be thrilled when children find their own way in life and succeed on their own terms.
28
Raising a child prodigy, or any child is a gift and a challenge. Trying to mold one out of less than natural prodigy clay is another matter. When our son’s math and other skills started to pass graduate school levels during middle school and teachers and parents would compliment my parenting skills, my reply was that his abilities were well beyond anything that I had done, his life was his own and my only goals were to support him and primarily help him not become an arrogant jerk (this was a decade before Sheldon of Big Bang Theory - which I understand the Iron Throne moment during the final episode is Sheldon’s demonstrating he is self aware that he is an arrogant jerk and will try not to be). After deciding Chemical Engineering wasn’t his passion my son is now an infectious disease MD. Productive intelligent compassion caring is his goal, my goals remain the same.
12
During most of human history children did what their parents did. Hunt, gather; later on grow stuff, herd animals, and so on. Children started helping as soon as they were physically able to. Short life spans and nobody worried about playing guitar vs. violin since neither instrument existed. Hopefully good story tellers were valued in the old days--I'd like to think so.
3
@Old Mainer
Actually, that raises a good point. When kids were expected to be helping out the family to survive, kids had to be generalists, a kid focused on one thing wouldn't survive very well, wouldn't be much help. Kids had to learn a lot of different things, they had to learn to read the weather, they had to learn about animal husbandry (if they had animals), they had to learn to create or repair things, they had to learn any number of skills, they couldn't afford to be specialists.
1
The world is changing so fast, the children born today will work and play in fields yet to be imagined. Unconditional love can guide a child toward a life of curiosity, passion, experimentation, adventure and willingness to fail in pursuit of the great.
There are worthy life goals besides Carnegie hall, championships or the Nobel prize.
12
Using Tiger Woods as an example in a column about parenting is risky. Although Earl Woods may have helped maximize his son's ability on the golf course, it is clear that he failed in the more important task of raising his son to become an honest, empathetic, and supportive husband and father.
99
@Rowing Bear eldritch woods’ problems as a husband are his own, not the fathers’. All men pursue new opportunities. Blaming the father for the sins of the son is wrong.
3
@Rowing Bear You took the words right out of my mouth.
@Rowing Bear Touche'
1
My niece started playing the violin at 9 and everyone (Tiger Mom Central) said we were wasting are time because you really need to start them at 3 for any chance of music career. If the child isn't soloing by age 12, they will never amount to anything.
This is insane. There are only so many white elks like Itzhak Perlman. My niece will never be Perlman, but how many violinists are? If you aren't brow beating preschoolers, you have no hope?
I told my niece, John Sheehan, of The Dubliners, started around her age, and he toured and made a pretty fine living playing the violin. Our tastes runs more Klezmer, Jazz and bluegrass/folk than Mozart, so Mr. Sheehan is terrific inspiration for my niece.
My niece's fiddle play may never turn into a paying gig, but there is no better stress reliever than learning new tunes and jamming with like minded people. That's okay.
31
@Ford313
When people talk about playing the violin and starting early, they are talking about classical violin, where the level of playing today is light years ahead of where it was even 20 years ago, in large part because of the influx of kids from Asia into classical music, where there is an emphasis on starting early and also with the work ethic of practicing long hours at an early age.
With music outside classical, that has this weird obsession with technical precision over almost anything else, that kind of approach works against you. In Jazz and Fiddling music, much of the beauty lies in the passion of the performer and in how they interpret the music, both rely heavily on the 'feeling' of the piece much more so than if some music teacher appreciates the technical precision of a slide or vibrato or intonation. That doesn't mean, like many in the classical world claim, that anything other than classical is 'easy', people in all music worlds spend a lot of time working on their music, spend many hours playing, trying to get gigs, write music, find their voice. The difference with Jazz and Fiddling and the like a lot of that is in living life, too; Charlie Parker said you can't put it through the horn unless you have lived it. On the other hand, watching some 9 year old 'prodigy' playing Zigeunerweisen (about a gypsy woman), where they have no clue what it is about, is sad.
5
I would agree with the article but add another factor - no one discipline has all the answers. As the article has described in sports, the same is true in other areas. In the sciences the most exciting discoveries are being made in the intersections between disciplines - biology and chemistry; chemistry and physics, etc.
8
I came from a first-generation American family of lower-class people who were fixated on personal success. Because they had daughters and it was the 1950s, they assumed we'd get married, so they didn't stress the financial aspects. It was all about being smart and talented. We girls were expected to excel in order to reassure Mom and Dad that they were intelligent, good people. From a very young age, I felt that my loveability was tied up with my accomplishments. This made me not trust my parents, who I felt were disingenuous. Internally, a revolt was going on. I dropped out of college and took a job as a waitress. I lived my life under the radar, choosing activities that interested me and jobs that kept me out of the public eye, where I could function unassailed by judgments and monitoring. My parents' attempt to mold me into a Nobel Prize winner backfired big time.
This is just one person's story, and not the whole story. Nevertheless, in hindsight I know that my parents weren't bad people. They were poor children from chaotic families. They did the best they could. I also notice that my friends whose lives turned out the happiest were those who were allowed to thrive and fail in the normal course of growing up, without having to satisfy the narcissistic needs of their parents.
25
Harvard and Yale are full of budding violinists , most of whom who end up in law school, finance or medical school. Musical geniuses are born, not made. Yes, a parent or sponsor can help by providing the means to learn music- but in the end the will and talent to do it are there are already or not. Childhood is too precious to be wasted or stolen by a helicopter parent.
26
@Irene Cantu
And some of those geniuses will become failures or die young. Life is not always easy even for those raised with love and good guidance. What I wish for all people is what my grandmother who lived to be 90 and was a hard working caring person prominent in her community never had.
She came to stay with me in 1970 when I was struggling through a difficult divorce and confessed that in all her life she had never known joy. That was a major shock to me. So I wish that whatever path people follow in life, somewhere for at least some few moments they will know joy.
3
@Irene Cantu
That isn't entirely true, musical ability has inate components, but the fact that so many violinists end up at Harvard and Yale doesn't mean they lack musical genius. Speaking with direct knowledge, some of those kids are incredibly talent musically, but the reason they end up at Harvard and Yale and Princeton is because their parents would never think of letting them enter music. As with Amy Chua, they know that the elite schools, especially HYP, give accomplished music students an edge in admissions (it isn't like sports, these kids have the hyper stats academically, too), the top pre college programs have a lot of kids who are there, whether they like music or not, because their parents wanted them there. It is kind of sad, some of the kids achieved a kind of mastery, but it was obvious they don't want to be there, and others who really love music, know that because of their parents it was only there to be a vehicle to get them towards that golden ring, pure and simple.
1
@music observer Musical geniuses is rare -
there has been only one Mozart and just one Beethoven. That being said, there seem to be a lot of what I would call the "almosts ". The almosts should be allowed to pursue their hobby
with the support but without the interference of pushy parents.
1
Not to mention, the “Tigers” of the world are some of the most boring people that you will ever have the displeasure to meet. The “Rogers” tend to have a far more eclectic and diverse range of interests and experiences. They are generally much more socially engaging and find it easier to transition between a variety of subjects and topics. In fact, they tend to often be much more interested in those other (or even new) topics than those that they are well known for.
35
@Jason
Interestingly, the real Tiger and Roger are good friends! So maybe Tiger is not the terrible boring person that some commenters seem to think he is. And doesn't his son Charlie live with him most of the time?
Good ideas, but confusing essay. So Tiger Woods's dad gave him a putter when he was 7 months old because the 7-month old child had displayed interest in the sport? Can you start your piece with what was clearly parental influence and end with the idea that Woods's father didn't exert parental influence over his choices?
8
@Margaret Campbell Conversely, perhaps baby Tiger exhibited interest in the putter because his father, eager to raise a champion golfer, gave Tiger lots of positive attention when Tiger held the putter.
I don't have any idea which was the case, but the story always makes me think of Andre Agassi... another child prodigy athlete who went on to great success in the sport his father chose for him. I read once that the younger Mr. Agassi hated tennis, but only played to please his father. What a sad thought, that such immense talent not give the owner joy.
12
@Margaret Campbell
Earl Woods put the putter in the kids hands with the obsession of him being a golf pro, it was the classic case of the parent living through the child. He didn't get Tiger into golf to get him into an elite university (though Tiger did go to Stanford), the way some parents see sports, he did it to create the next PGA champion. Whether Tiger himself actually loved the game, or did this to please his father, is debatable (I think Tiger does love the game, but my sneaking suspicion it is a love-hate relationship, some of his fall may have been rebellion).
I remember a story about the incredible Tim Duncan. He started out as a powerful swimmer but after Hurricane Hugo destroyed the pool on St Croix he switched to basketball. The 'Spurs' got the benefit of that switch and Timmy made history.
9
Our trainees specialise as soon as possible in a business area. Much more profitable for us to commoditise like that. But the ones who prosper long term have a wider skill set. What is communicated regarding early specialism in today’s technical world is often a function of allowing people to achieve some guaranteed success in a career, but it is not true for those with the capacity to reach the top. Those people will achieve in whatever field they ultimately choose.
3
My daughter's 100 year old mentor (lasted until 105!), a distinguished Senoir Fellow in the Harvard Society of Fellows, passed on reassuring comment to me when I said she seemed to be floundering about career paths -- he said "sometimes it is good to be confused."
21
@Granny kate
A wise man, to say the least. Socrates is supposed to have said something like "If I am wise, it is because I realize I know nothing", a person not sure of a career path is simply someone wise enough to realize they don't know what that 'career path' is.
I remember vividly the day my sixth grade teacher told us the concept of being a Renaissance Man, who saw success as being good at many things, vs. the champion of one thing.
“Only one can be the best, and everyone else is a loser. But any number can be excellent without being the best.”
It’s why Melania’s Be Best campaign is so wrong.
20
I first encountered this advice when my eldest entered (public) Middle School. The Principal stated “ Middle School” rather than a “Junior High” was a place for a child to experiment, experience many things, and slowly gravitate to using their gifts and inclinations where they found self motivation rather than being forced to specialize too early.
6
Congratulations on the birth of your child! Your story of the harpist made me think about how people, looking back, feel the need to make sense out of their paths in life. In the future, when your son is an engineer who works with the tensile strengths of different metals or the acoustics of public spaces, you'll look back and playfully remind him that the harpist had an effect on him after all.
5
Unfortunately, it seems to be more difficult now for kids to be able to sample different sports or interests. The organized teams require more time commitments and often bleed over into other seasons. Is it harder now to just dabble?
43
@Concerned MD
I’m still angry about my son’s soccer coach telling him he shouldn’t go on a family ski trip because of the possibility of an injury that might affect the success of the team in the spring season. Grrr!
2
American pop culture dumbs you down. Parental pressure to be excellent can ruin your mind. The wish to pursue talent to excellence is work, and it has to come from the child. To generate that wish, they have to know what it is. The medium doesn't matter.
Take for example, toy pianos. When a two- or three-year-old child puts his (her) finger on a piano, it should be a real instrument, so they will make a sound that will inspire them. You have to see the best to be the best.
6
@Barbara Steinberg Who is to say that the sound of the toys piano, accessible to the tiny hands of a 3-year old, will not inspire the desire to play a full-size piano in later life? Childhood experience inspires adulthood reality.
4
I love this. When I was a child growing up in a crazy alcoholic home, academic success was a lifeline. When my children entered school, they were in different circumstances, buy I couldn't see that. I ended up tiger-momming them until I heard about the suffering this kind of pressure can cause. I'm glad people wrote about that (I think it was in a comment section!).
I also did the "Roger" thing. (I grew up with artists, they naturally do that, I think.) My older daughter has studied photography, Chinese, music, and biology. Now she is teaching English in Taiwan where she has played both her original instrument (clarinet with her kids) and the ukelele with a traditional music group. With her biology degree she got a great summer job teaching marine biology in California.
Although she has the talent to do exclusive things, and though I am still tempted to push her in that direction, she has chosen instead to pursue what she enjoys. I didn't have the nerve or parental support to do that myself. I'm both nervous and impressed at the same time.
She took a year off after college and worked as a teacher's aide at a poor school in North Dakota. One day she called and said "This brings me joy." She found her calling.
I just realized this article suggests extreme success is the reason to "allow" your children to pursue varied interests, not joy. I'm for finding joy first, professional success second. The good news: this article says you can do both! I love it.
39
In any intellectual discipline the higher levels are overwhelmingly defined by one skill: judgment--accurately guessing when, how much, where, when to pull back, when to apply pressure, knowing to strengths and weaknesses of friends and foes. You don't acquire these skills in one discipline. You need to be exposed to many ideas in different settings. And this is the superiority of a liberal arts education.
34
@Rich
Thanks, Rich, for saying something more useful about the value of a liberal-arts education than a whole shelf full of books on the topic.
@Rich Absolutely. No amount of ‘skill’ can make up for bad judgment. This is painfully apparent in the medical field.
1
@Rich
Spot on, Rich!
Before I became an adult prodigy, I was a child prodigy. I began writing music around four years old. Following about three intervening decades we discussed these matters. According to what they told me, I confused and frightened them and also made them somewhat jealous of my devotion to my work. Maybe this might help someone.
6
From the headline, I thought perhaps the author was going to suggest that we should lower the absurd expectations of our offspring, for their mental health (and ours).
But instead, the unreasonable expectations of excellence, ("triumph") are accepted as a given. What is proposed is a less direct path for even greater results.
I would recommend David Brooks' new book, The Second Mountain.
14
Most of your examples are very talented people. Your average Joe may be very different.
15
Perhaps great talent is more common than we think, if one can only find the best outlet for it.
I recall an interview with Cal Ripken. He had grown up in the generalist model with sports and highly recommended it. For one thing, it reduces repetitive stress injuries. Worked out pretty well for him.
That said, I regret somewhat that youth sports in the town that I grew up in, in New Jersey, never gave me a chance, really. There were basically zero practices, and in baseball, for example, I probably averaged 12 at-bats per season! The upside is that for everyone who succeeds to make it as a major league baseball player, there are dozens who played and practiced 50 hours a week in college and could not realistically pursue a useful degree. Having my hopes dashed in baseball was not all bad.
7
@Tim - I recall reading this about young Derek Jeter, too - lots of sports when young before he specialized. Is it the nature of the shortstop to be a baseball generalist? (Internist-like array of skills?) Maybe this lack of early, repetitive, chronic physical stress also contributed to their longevity as athletes.
Nice to read for a change that the late bloomer is not a bad person. However, one thing I notice about the system is that most of the awards (scholarships, etc.) emphasize youth. There is nothing wrong with discovering your gifts young, but not everyone is so lucky.
6
Thank you for your opinion. I think one of the most interesting things about generalists is the breadth of their curiosity. Having varied interests, and learning how to develop varied talents, enables generalists to understand and appreciate and value the experiences and accomplishments of others.
5
As a father and grandfather, I think a parent’s job is to nurture a child’s skills and interests, so they can make their way in this complex world. Having said that, I am amazed that new parents always think they have the “right” answer to child rearing. Provide your child with love Mr. Epstein, and he will do just fine.
26
I don’t know much about Roger, but my guess is he has a much higher happiness quotient than Tiger does, and I bet much of that is a result of how he was raised as a generalist. Focusing in on a particular sport or musical instrument can make for a lonely if successful childhood and life. Annie Dillard has a wonderful phrase that is worth considering—the scandal of particularly. Frost’s The Road Not Taken touches on the same idea. We make particular choices and they have particular consequences. You can’t have both.
5
@ehillesum. Good points, its not just being raised as a generalist, its also the amount of pressure applied by the parents.
Roger was blessed with two well educated supportive parents, apparently, when he had to move to a live in tennis academy during his teens, he would call home on a daily basis crying since he missed his loving home.
During that period the parents gave him the option of dropping out and going back to school, there was no pressure from them then or any time later. Perhaps that also explains Roger's seemingly happy family life with his wife and 4 children and the continued presence of his parents in their lives.
3
With apologies to all doctors out there: The old saying goes. "A generalist knows very little about an awful lot and a specialist knows an awful lot about almost nothing."
In my professional life, I was trained to be and I told my people they needed to be "T"s.
I want someone who has a broad depth of experience who can see the landscape and make decisions accordingly. But I also want her to be very very strong in a number of areas so she can contribute at a level almost nobody else could. That makes her quite valuable.
4
The Federer vs Woods example is instructive.
Golf is much more about perfecting a skill--or small set of closely connected skills--and reproducing them consistently on the course, namely a swing or different swings. This skill-set lends itself much more to shear repetition. Tennis is far more improvisational, requires a different kind of hand-eye coordination, puts the body in quite a few different positions, etc. in which the aim is not as much to reproduce the ideal swing under different circumstances.
5
@Dojovo
Your desire to privilege tennis skills over golf skills is not convincing.
Both sports involve hitting a ball with a club or racquet. In tennis, the ball is moving but the contact surface is much larger. In golf, the ball is stationary and the contact area tiny. Tennis requires a serve, backhand, and volley in addition to the forehand. But the principles of hitting a topspin or slice forehand are identical to hitting a draw or fade in golf.
Having played both sports for many years, I can attest that golf is a much more difficult sport to master.
Epstein diminishes the role of genetics and natural ability. Both Tiger and Roger are blessed with the musculature, flexibility, and hand-eye coordination to be the best in their sports, just as some kids master Chopin's "Fantaisie Impromptu" at age ten while others can barely sight read not matter the quality of instruction.
The point is to identify your child's natural abilities and interests and nurture them with loving support and mentoring.
We do not need more articles like this one in the aftermath of the college admissions scandal, a situation in which parents cheated and bribed officials in order to get their children admitted to schools they were not qualified for or necessarily interested in attending.
It goes without saying that this behavior causes familial and social dysfunction.
4
Talent alone is never a guarantee of success and even if a child is singularly motivated to develop their talent they still may not achieve their goals. The hardest but most valuable lesson a parent can teach their child is to enjoy the ride. We are all destined to arrive somewhere but more often than not the journey isn’t quite what we expected, with twists, turns and bumps in the road. If a parent can prepare their child for that journey with lots of skills, abilities and perhaps an extra helping of sense of humor then the talent itself won’t matter so much.
Sounds like this little guy is a very lucky boy!! Congratulations!
21
@Fiona’s Mom Fiona is a lucky girl! Her mom is wise.
1
I think it was Harry Truman who said the best advice we can give to our children is to find out what they're interested in doing and advise them to do it.
Hear, hear.
50
The idea of Nature vs. Nurture remains vague and rather controversial. Nevertheless, if a child has the capacity to learn, and his/her physiological development is not hampered by ailments of any kind, the child will evolve to adopt to his/her environment. The latest genetic-psychology ( psychology, biology, genetics and statistics) studies have shown.
Our brains are not made of marble. Our brains are malleable and evolve until the end of our lives. Infants' and young adults' brains become fully developed by about the age of 21. They need to become familiar with their environment, before they master it.
Parenting styles may vary depending on who the parents are as individuals, their socioeconomic status, their beliefs, even the geographic location where they live... among many other factors. Therefore, parents need to come to terms with the reasons for procreating in the first place!
Provide the best possible environment, and allow the children to find their groove.
5
I helped raise two very successful daughters. Their mother and I tried to expose them to as many different ideas as possible - arts of all types, science, math, gardening, woodworking, auto mechanics, crafts - you get the idea. I'd like to believe we set them both up to find something - on their own - that they could love to do, without pushing them at any particular thing. Today one's a business executive, one's a university professor, and they're happy, well-rounded people. Many things in life don't require early specialization, and the perspective one can bring with a broad education is invaluable.
10
I agree wholeheartedly. However the organizations that make money off of kids activities have become selfish. They peddle in the fear that kids will miss opportunity if they don’t commit 100 percent to the sport, music, math tutoring, etc. Now it’s a vicious cycle that forgets that kids should have fun, try new things, see what sticks for them, to just grow as a person not future number one in the world in X activity. It’s the same madness that exists on the college search front. Well meaning parents who are not generally obsessed get caught up in it but also have no other option if their child is decent at an activity and wants to play more than a short rec season. Columns like this that focus only on the parents frustrate me because they ignore the industry driving this madness.
11
@XX
This is so important. The professionalization of youth instruction in athletics, music, visual arts, science, etc. is at the root of much of this. "Your child looks like he can throw. He would really benefit from another hour of pitching instruction." "I know soccer isn't a winter sport but if she doesn't sign up for our winter program, then she will not be allowed on our top team." These are things that I have heard. The professionals are peddling false hopes and often doing more harm than good. I cannot blame them. They are trying to make a living. But parents need to realize that these are activities we should be doing with our kids and that our kids should be doing on their own or with friends. You don't need a business or a program to learn to excel or love these endeavors. Sometimes all you need is a ball.
8
there's an additional side note to your two examples. one child grew up non white coding black in America and the other privileged in resort towns.
being a generalist has always been a luxury afforded only to those who have no reasonable expectation of failure and no experience with the constant head wind that comes with being treated like a second class citizen.
you put a putter or a basketball in your kid's hand at far too early an age if you know that her or she must be exceptional to be afforded basic respect.
I value the generalist, but the specialist is built out of a very rational response to the world.
26
See Proverbs 22:6
Teach the child in the manner appropriate to him; even when he becomes old he will not turn from it (my translation).
In spite of Mr. Epstein's preference for generalists, it is not a good idea to generalize.
Children, with or without talent and skills are different from one another. One proverbial size does not fit all.
9
A timely article as my son has just made his university decision. When researching options his main focus has been in finding a program that would allow for a fair amount of room to explore multiple interests. Though accepted to a top engineering program he has decided instead on a program with a structure which will allow for more flexibility. At first I was concerned due to the more obvious career path for an engineering degree but I think this program will suit him much better.
4
My wife, with a minor assist from me, raised our four now adult children. She descried specialization; they all participated in 3 sports, sang in the chorus, took up the musical instrument of their choice (trombone, sax, guitar, a bit of cello, and clarinet), and did a fair amount of school work to boot.
No Nobels, no Masters Jackets, no US Open trophies, and, sadly, not a single Olympic medal. We are neither Roger nor Tiger parents. She is simply a great parent who used her common sense and perspective to teach what all those studies (David, I loved this article, believe me) revealed, that kids need elbow room to develop physically, emotionally, intellectually, and creatively.
And my kids? Excelling in fields that include deaf education, speech-language pathology, musical theater, and high school counseling. Lifelong participants in athletic pursuits, and parents of growing, glowing children.
Sad to say, even with this astounding record, not a soul has ever approached the greatest diversifier of all, my wife, for advice on how to achieve this feat of parenting.
I guess the research will have to do the convincing. Kind of a shame, though.
83
@Victor Your praise for you wife and her parenting skills touched my heart. She obviously also had a talent in picking a loving and fine gentleman as her husband as well!
5
My dispute with this essay: it seems to present that everyone - after trying out different things and choosing a variety of "hobbies" - is then better when they specialize. I propose that specialization should not be the goal.
Being a generalist myself, I find that my career has consisted of numerous positions at differing levels where I have been buttonholed into doing one particular thing that I do well. Management then wants to leave me with those tasks BECAUSE I do them well, and does not allow me to pursue my other interests. Boredom ensues, with no opportunity for personal fulfillment without changing employers.
Management today does not value polymaths. I doubt they even understand the meaning of the word.
24
@Chris This sounds sadly familiar to me. I keep joking that I'm bored to tears of the things that I'm good at, and a beginner at things that interest me, therefore I'm condemned to live my life in a perpetual state of incompetence...
3
Let’s remember that the Roger pattern requires a Roger. There are not many of those out there. The pattern might allow your little ones to figure out their proclivities but likely will not actually make a Roger. The pattern might make the “best” of what you have to work with, but as we often see, parenting style is often not as important as what nature has given our children.
10
I think you are right. I've changed career several times. Taught at college for 10 years and now run a library. Was in business before I started to teach. I found that I brought something from each field into the next. But even if you are not right, I think the evidence is clear: those that range widely and constantly try new things are happier. They are equally productive and successful, but they are happier.
8
Yes, being a generalist might help you to find that one great thing that is your gift. But beyond that, it is a lot of fun! Being able to sample and enjoy the many varied activities available to humans living on planet earth is a joy, even if you never discover that you’re greatly talented in any particular one.
9
I started playing the cello in 3rd grade. It was an instrument I was spectacularly unsuited for as I have the smallest hands and fingers. I wasn't given the opportunity to change to a different instrument (even though I kept trying my sister's flute which she gave up early on). I am happy to have learned the language of music and have a love and musicality instilled in me, though I wish it had been with a more appropriate instrument. As an adult I did try the cello again only to come to the same problem, no reach.
12
But not all children will naturally dabble. We strive to balance a little prod here and there to get them to consider new things and letting them discover new pastures of their own. Like much of life, probably the best answer for most people will lie between Tiger and Roger.
7
What you do is, you expose them to various things--- some beginner tennis and swim lessons, a few art classes, piano lessons---try ice skating, whatever, --- and if they show talent or beg for more then you go on. Often they show an affinity for something very young. One of mine always seemed to be sitting right in front of a stereo speaker with her thumb in her mouth, and the other was always at the kitchen table, drawing or doing watercolors. They went on to do a lot with music and art, respectively, in later years.
8
Medical schools learned the value of generalization decades ago. There was a time when acceptances were based on strong backgrounds in the basic sciences -math, biology, chemistry. Then they learned having only those qualities didn't make a particularly good doctor. Music majors are now on the acceptance lists.
21
It seems that in the US culture competition and dominance is everything, not so much cooperation and collaboration.
62
@GMR This dad certainly makes it seem so.
I read to my son from the moment he got home. I love him, set fair limits, and most importantly of all support HIS interests. Not mine nor what I think he should be.
I find many aspects of rearing children today to be a bloodless war with other parents for whose kid is the best-at soccer or school or debate.
The casualties are the kids who are pushed so hard at young ages for showing even a glimpse of talent.
32
I thought it was all about the 10,000 hours. or the grit, or whatever else the nouveau-sages are selling. Expose your kids to 12 different instruments and they'll be playing the NY philharmonic. But in the vast majority of cases the kid drops the instrument or sport or career plan in high school, or college to become an employee somewhere with a family. And in any case, neither happiness nor kindness nor quality of life depend on the kind of fame Epstein is focused on.
45
@James
Those were examples? I don't think he in any way meant your kid has to be famous, or that that's necessarily something to shoot for.
1
I wish educators would read this book---presently, we have high school and college curricular designed around academic specialities--and taught that way, as if every high school student will become an historian, or biologists, or mathematician. Instead of preparing students for a college academic curriculum---which again is solely designed to produce professors---design courses and course sequences that address big questions -- questions, that we as a generalists public are often asked, but, lack the methods of inquiry or background knowledge to adequately answer. The disciplines do offer frameworks for thinking about real world problems, but, unfortunately, the frameworks are employed to study academic problems, which work well if you are publishing in a professional journal, but, fail miserably in the real world.
7
There is great truth in this article. I have a doctorate in a medical field far from my undergraduate degree in economics. I choose that undergraduate degree at a small liberal arts college because it allowed me to take more music and history courses which are a continued lifetime passion. The most influential people in my life all have had diverse interests that made them more interesting and the wealth of experience made their example and advice all the more credible.
25
The concept of early sport specialization for children is driven by money and the fact that people are driven by the emotions of fear and greed. Youth sports has become an industry with a simple marketing approach. FEAR: fuel natural parental worry that their child will fall behind, not be able to keep up with other kids, be ridiculed, and that failure to be the best athlete is a reflective of parental failing. GREED: there will be scholarships, parental "success" will be validated, the child athlete will stand out and get attention. The result for many, many kids is: 1) missed chance to find a sport they truly will excel at. I saw kids forced to play soccer or lacrosse when they may have shot the lights out in tennis, swimming, or golf 2) injuries from overuse at ridiculously young ages 3) disappointment when they find they are nowhere near the level of athlete required to play even at the club level in college 4) lost chances to make friends and experience life outside of their club team.
22
@Questioner you are absolutely correct that the youth sports industry has grown out of control to the detriment of the children.
10
@Questioner
One of the greatest pieces of advice my stepsister, who raised three sons, gave me was “Never let your kids get very good at any sport.” She and her husband had spent most of their weekends driving to select league events all over the state. My kids played in their local rec leagues and we all had a wonderful time developing close friendships in our neighborhood. As a rank amateur ref, we all had plenty of laughs at my blown calls.
9
What Mr, Epstein describes as the benefits of the generalist approach, I think of as the crucial human need to avoid boredom. I had a patch of time in my life that lasted about two years when I was bored stiff in my job. Thankfully I was able to get out of there.
10
No legit comparison between Woods and Federer.
Tennis is a sport; golf is a game, where older people can drive carts around the field and hire others to shlep the heavy stuff. Yes, golf requires skill, like any game. For example, pool. But to call golf a sport on “par” with basketball or tennis is pure marketing.
37
@Ben K I agree! Although swinging a golf club with accuracy takes quite a bit of athletic skill.
1
The title is somewhat misleading. Those last paragraphs make the most important point: real child prodigies show the interest themselves, and their parents respond to it. Children whose prodigy-like achievements have been forced on them by their parents' ambition rarely go far in their fields when they're adults.
127
What I glean from the article is that we ought to support a diversity of learning styles, as there is no single method that works best for everyone. Millions of fathers stick golf clubs (or hockey sticks, footballs, baseballs, etc.) in their son's stroller. Certainly, they don't all become Tigers. Tiger became Tiger because, at a fundamental level, he was wired with an exceptional, singular focus at a young age. Roger, on the other hand, was wired differently. Maybe what our education system should be doing is spending more time with kids at a younger age to better understand how they learn as individuals, rather than search for a one-size-fits-all model.
29
A diverse intellect has the benefit of a mind less beholden to one particular manner of thought. Just as there is wisdom in the butter-knife screwdriver, there are limits to the screwdriver butter-knife. Kitchen heresy, to be sure, but heresy in one field can be scientific inquiry in another.
10
As a basic research scientist, I had the privilege of attending scientific conferences and dining with a table of Nobel Prize winners. Each one had both interest and talent in the arts, music, sports. Generalization is key for everyone.
150
@Em May I quote you ?
@Em You may know this already: a study of Nobel Prize winning scientists a few years ago found that over 50% participated seriously in some form of the arts, whether playing a musical instrument, painting, dancing, etc. The chair of my medicine department was a somewhat accomplished playwright and I had a another colleague who was a soloist for major symphony orchestras into her late 20s. Two of my friends are artists, one specializes in pen-and-ink drawings while the other is a painter. People are often surprised I grew up wanting to be an artist and winning art/ writing awards -- not in math/ science -- as a child.
When people think of creativity, they often think of the arts but not science. In fact, science requires a lot of creativity. Often though, beginners have to learn the fundamentals first and because of that, many probably come away with the impression science is fixed and about memorization rather than ever-changing and about experimentation.
2
Scandinavian countries believe in the value of generalization. This belief is manifest in national education and extracurricular policies and a general societal mindset. Their children appear more psychologically content and later seem more professionally satisfied than US, Korean and French top students who are pushed to specialize much much too early. The race to nowhere continues.
16
@Rourke
Spot on. We here in North America stand to learn an awful lot from those Scandinavian countries.
As someone who's had at least seven different careers in IT over the past four decades, I can attest to the generalist survival patterns I see among my most successful (read: magnificently happy!) colleagues.
Generalists will always win over specialists because they have a better chance of shifting to a newer technology, a new way of thinking, and even adopt older discarded methods to solve new problems.
That's why I chuckle so hard when I see so many folks enter the H-1B lottery in India to get a high-tech job in the US: They are almost always specialists, focused on just one aspect of tech, and often unable to shift to a different mind-set once the IT marketplace changes (which it does about every 18 months, in lockstep with Moore's Law).
Creativity, adaptability, social skills, listening, and - above all! - language +comprehension+ win the day every time. Mastering one IT skill often leads to mastering another, but without those soft skills, people are doomed to failure.
Federers Unite!
13
Too bad this idea is neither valued nor recognized by U.S. colleges, Universities, Graduate schools, or H.R. departments in the workplace. It's going to be avery long time before it is, too late for as much as half of us in the workforce, maybe more.
28
@tex andrews Of course it's recognized! It's just unfashionable. The whole basis of the liberal arts curriculum in U.S. colleges and universities is the requirement that students gain some familiarity with a broad variety of disciplines before narrowing their interests down to a major. And even then, it's usually possible to take some additional courses.
63
I consider myself a "Roger" person. The best prep I had for being a practicing Ph.D. psychologist was to start my college career as a chemical engineer (3 years worth). My thinking about people is infused with math/stat concepts, like normal curves and, for example, the odds of getting accepted/rejected when asking for a date. The lesson, I believe is skills/approaches/concepts learned in one part of life helps us in other parts. We generalize and extrapolate.
One caveat: it helps if we experience some degree of success in a given area. If not, if we are inferior to peers, we don't develop the confidence to try other things. Success breeds...
25
In the animal world, generalists survive - specialists go extinct. Consider the coyote, the raccoon, or the deer, all of whom are generalists and have adapted very well in our anthropocentric world. In contrast, the panda bear, or certain frogs, and a wide array of species that attempt to survive in the Amazon.
Generalization helps us thrive and survive.
40
@Susan
Not necessarily true. You can't make general conclusions from a few examples. In some cases, generalists do well, in some cases specialists do well. Furthermore, it's very hard to generalize from what might be occurring in a natural state, to what should be occurring in human society.
16
@SK Generalists, whether in human society or in nature, are more likely to be able to adapt to change in their environment. You have a fallback option, because you are a generalist (definition of generalist).
If you are best in the world at but can only do , you’re in fat city as long as you can do but you’re hosed when doing is no longer possible.
8
@Susan I suspect we humans have messed with the ability of many animal species to survive, specialists or not.
5
What’s the implication for not just parenting but the public education system? With a liberal education falling out of favor and specialized STEM-industrial ascending, we may not be preparing youth for the best response to AI and machine learning - being well rounded, fully mindful, interdependent human beings.
223
@Roger Quintanilla Good question but I believe the narrow Tiger orientation begins at home very early. No amount of school influence can offset those early admonitions of being special in some preordained area.
1
@Roger Quintanilla
My students are now expected to plot their career paths before they even come to me in high school.
Kids on the "college track" don't feel like they can take classes in tech ed, family and consumer ed, arts (except orchestra), a foreign language (except Spanish), or other areas that may pique their interest. It's all a march to get the highest grades in a list of classes that is considered the most impressive.
Their music and art time in elementary and middle school has been cut back. Physical education and recess have been cut back. Funding for after-school programs is gone. All of these things could help reduce stress and make school a more joyful place to learn instead of an institution to prepare them for high-stakes standardized tests.
We are on the wrong track with this overemphasis on standardized test scores in a few core subjects.
50