A Critique of Amy Chua's "Chinese" Style of Parenting

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

On the 8th of January, the Wall Street Journal published an excerpt of Amy Chua's book, The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. In this, excerpt, Chua argues that extremely strict parenting supposedly typical of Asian parents is the way to raise "successful children". This type of parenting places great stress upon achieving academic and musical results, often to the drastic exclusion of many other facets of life. She also is heavily critical of the more lassiez-fare, supposedly Western style of parenting. I am here going to explain why Amy’s method of parenting is heavily flawed.

Amy Chua's methods seem to focus heavily on academic and musical excellence, to the exclusion of many other aspects of life. This is enforced by extremely strict discipline, involving the heavy use of insults, threats and punishments. And it appears to be successful in ensuring some level of academic success for her children. However, I can safely say that in my experience as a student, the children raised by that method do not always get the results their parents want from them. In fact they often don't. They'll try to get along doing the bare minimum, to keep their parents happy. Or maybe they'll just rebel silently, instead of studying, they'll often play video games while pretending to study or do their homework. They'll try to hide exam results from their parents for fear of punishment. The fact is, this method of parenting doesn't guarantee academic success. In fact it can often backfire, producing the wrong results. Sometimes it's because the children know that the demands of their parents cannot be met, and don't bother trying. Other times, it's because they're doing it only to keep their parents happy, and this lack of self-motivation means that the children can't really be bothered to put much effort in. This method far from guarantees in producing academic success, it only works in certain circumstances. Additionally, it’s not the only method of producing academic success, good old self-motivation and having a passion for the subject can often trump this method.

When it comes to musical success, this heavy focus appears much more successful. In my personal experience, the children raised using this method (or something similar) actually end up as competent musicians. However, I don’t believe that any of them enjoy practicing for hours on end, and only really appear good because they learn it faster than everyone else. When they grow up, I don’t believe they become talented musicians any more than the average. It’s also likely that this approach crushes their appreciation of music, hence squandering any talent that may arise.

As a side product of this narrow focus on academic and musical success, Amy's children have very unbalanced lives. They're prohibited from doing many of the things normal children do in their leisure time. This includes: playing video games, having a playdate, and attending sleepovers. This is quite obviously extreme, and probably unnecessarily so. I’m sure that having leisure time that is in fact leisurely, isn’t mutually exclusive with academic or musical success. Additionally, this narrow focus also is likely inhibits the development of social skills. This is because this narrow focus is socially isolating; outside school the children raised using this method are prohibited from socialising. This must have some ramifications. And social skills are actually quite important in real life. In order for someone to get a job and keep it, they’ve got to have social skills; working involves interacting with others and if you can’t work with other people you’re not going to get a job.

This method also has another draw back, it is very restrictive and domineering. Amy’s children are not allowed to choose their own extracurricular activities or be in a school play. They are also prohibited from choosing to play an instrument other than the piano or the violin. And it gets worse, Amy doesn’t really seem to accept that people are unique and have differing talents. This approach centres on making the child conform to the parent’s wishes, which are often different to from the child’s. It also assumes that children are much like plastic, if you mould them in the same way, you end up with the same product at the end. I fervently disagree with this domineering and restrictive style of parenting. First of all, for some children, it isn’t possible to have them conform to the wishes of their parents; you can’t always mould them. Secondly, even if you can, it’s an attack on the child’s individuality. They can’t follow their interests, they have to follow some path determined by their parents. The scary prospect is that they can’t really be themselves, they have to be what their parents what their parents want them to be. This also has another effect, the children don’t really become independent; they don’t actually make any decisions before they leave home. If these children never learn how to make decision while they're at home, leaving home is going to be an extremely steep learning curve, even steeper than normal. Add this in with a lack of social skills, and you’ve got young adults who aren’t prepared for the outside world.

In the end, it probably should be mentioned that when it comes to parenting, extremes are stupid. Like this method of parenting. It doesn’t even achieve it’s stated goals, and in trying it neglects other areas of development, such as independence and social skills. Seriously.

 

[asianaussie]

Were you raised in a method geared towards this particular extreme? If so, then the reply itching to flow from my fingers will require some tweaking. I was raised in a fashion similar to, but obviously not exactly like Amy Chua's total-control 'child artisan' approach.

The primary issue I have with her domineering and almost perfectionist attitude towards academics is that it is completely out of social context. Having witnessed many cases of such schooling in China itself, I feel that, if she were parenting in China, this particular approach would be condoned, and perhaps even praised. The difference is that China is far more competitive in terms of academics, and students do not need extra motivation from their parents, though such motivation is hardly seen as abnormal. The key issue with this style of parenting is simply that she, in the western world, has chosen to use what the Chinese would consider only a minor deviation from the normal method, where this method can only be described as overly extreme.

Whether it is effective can be derived from two external factors: the child's motivation and the child's actual ability to achieve results. Forcing a child with no ability in, say, physics (eg. me) to do said subject is not going to be particularly fruitful. If, however, the child has a sincere interest in physics, dedication and work can somewhat make up for it. Having a healthy dose of both is clearly better, though.

 

[ballin4life]

One thing I want to point out off the bat is that it's not just about pointing out bad things about the "Chinese Mother" method - you also have to point out good things about the "American" method. Remember, it's called "Why Chinese Mothers are SUPERIOR"

Amy Chua's methods seem to focus heavily on academic and musical excellence, to the exclusion of many other aspects of life. This is enforced by extremely strict discipline, involving the heavy use of insults, threats and punishments. And it appears to be successful in ensuring some level of academic success for her children. However, I can safely say that in my experience as a student, the children raised by that method do not always get the results their parents want from them. In fact they often don't. They'll try to get along doing the bare minimum, to keep their parents happy. Or maybe they'll just rebel silently, instead of studying, they'll often play video games while pretending to study or do their homework. They'll try to hide exam results from their parents for fear of punishment. The fact is, this method of parenting doesn't guarantee academic success. In fact it can often backfire, producing the wrong results. Sometimes it's because the children know that the demands of their parents cannot be met, and don't bother trying. Other times, it's because they're doing it only to keep their parents happy, and this lack of self-motivation means that the children can't really be bothered to put much effort in. This method far from guarantees in producing academic success, it only works in certain circumstances. Additionally, it’s not the only method of producing academic success, good old self-motivation and having a passion for the subject can often trump this method.

This is all just speculation. Plus, which student is going to do better - the one with a Chinese mother who is constantly pushing her to excel or the one with an American mother who doesn't take an active role in her child's education?

Obviously a Chinese mother would never allow a student to hide exam results.

And what is going to make a student with an American mother be self-motivated? What makes anyone self-motivated? Part of the point was that parental motivation leads to self motivation. Many children do not try because they believe they will not succeed. Once you see that you CAN succeed, you are much more likely to do so of your own accord as well.

As a tutor, I have noticed that one of the biggest problems students have is a lack of a strong foundation in the basics (particularly with math, where each level builds on the previous). If students put in more effort at the lower levels, they could learn the higher levels much more easily. But the "American" method lets the child fall behind at the start, and the child may never catch up.

As a side product of this narrow focus on academic and musical success, Amy's children have very unbalanced lives. They're prohibited from doing many of the things normal children do in their leisure time. This includes: playing video games, having a playdate, and attending sleepovers. This is quite obviously extreme, and probably unnecessarily so. I’m sure that having leisure time that is in fact leisurely, isn’t mutually exclusive with academic or musical success. Additionally, this narrow focus also is likely inhibits the development of social skills. This is because this narrow focus is socially isolating; outside school the children raised using this method are prohibited from socialising. This must have some ramifications. And social skills are actually quite important in real life. In order for someone to get a job and keep it, they’ve got to have social skills; working involves interacting with others and if you can’t work with other people you’re not going to get a job.

I think this is an exaggeration. It's not like these children have no friends and no social skills.

Plus employers will take the person who is a knowledgeable, diligent worker over someone with marginally better social skills.

This method also has another draw back, it is very restrictive and domineering. Amy’s children are not allowed to choose their own extracurricular activities or be in a school play. They are also prohibited from choosing to play an instrument other than the piano or the violin. And it gets worse, Amy doesn’t really seem to accept that people are unique and have differing talents. This approach centres on making the child conform to the parent’s wishes, which are often different to from the child’s. It also assumes that children are much like plastic, if you mould them in the same way, you end up with the same product at the end. I fervently disagree with this domineering and restrictive style of parenting. First of all, for some children, it isn’t possible to have them conform to the wishes of their parents; you can’t always mould them. Secondly, even if you can, it’s an attack on the child’s individuality. They can’t follow their interests, they have to follow some path determined by their parents. The scary prospect is that they can’t really be themselves, they have to be what their parents what their parents want them to be. This also has another effect, the children don’t really become independent; they don’t actually make any decisions before they leave home. If these children never learn how to make decision while they're at home, leaving home is going to be an extremely steep learning curve, even steeper than normal. Add this in with a lack of social skills, and you’ve got young adults who aren’t prepared for the outside world.

It's a lot better than having your children fail...

Independence isn't that hard to learn; the main issue is one of rebellion. But part of the point of the "Chinese Mother" method is to instill a genuine desire to succeed. Perhaps the child will eventually rebel from playing piano, but it is more doubtful that she will rebel academically. Even if she puts in far less work, having a much better foundation from previous years of schooling will put her in a much better situation than her classmates.


Disclaimer: Yes, I think the methods depicted are extreme. But I think it's possible to promote this sort of attitude without making your children want to rebel (basically, without being an ******* about it). It's certainly better than a parent who takes no interest in her child's education and lets her child fall behind.

Even looking at myself, I have a terrible work ethic for school (for actual jobs it's a lot easier to work hard since there are fewer distractions ) and I procrastinate all the time (I'm posting here instead of writing a paper), in part due to the fact that my parents didn't push me. The truth is that I floated by my whole life based on being smart, so I never developed strong study habits or a good work ethic for school. I think my parents would have been more likely to push me if I hadn't been getting good grades regardless of my effort. But still, I feel like I'm trying now to instill these habits in myself, whereas the "Chinese mother" instills these habits in her children from a young age.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Were you raised in a method geared towards this particular extreme? If so, then the reply itching to flow from my fingers will require some tweaking. I was raised in a fashion similar to, but obviously not exactly like Amy Chua's total-control 'child artisan' approach.

Nope.

Whether it is effective can be derived from two external factors: the child's motivation and the child's actual ability to achieve results. Forcing a child with no ability in, say, physics (eg. me) to do said subject is not going to be particularly fruitful. If, however, the child has a sincere interest in physics, dedication and work can somewhat make up for it. Having a healthy dose of both is clearly better, though.

Yeah, but it's often applied to children without the ability and motivation. It can work, but it it's not the only method of achieving academic success. And if they have the motivation, it's kinda superfluous.

One thing I want to point out off the bat is that it's not just about pointing out bad things about the "Chinese Mother" method - you also have to point out good things about the "American" method. Remember, it's called "Why Chinese Mothers are SUPERIOR"

I will get around to fixing that up. I'll change the title.. It was more a critique of the "Chinese" method. I can't really be bothered to write an extra half essay. Sorry.

This is all just speculation. Plus, which student is going to do better - the one with a Chinese mother who is constantly pushing her to excel or the one with an American mother who doesn't take an active role in her child's education?

That's a false dichotomy. It could indeed be the western child who does better, he may be self-motivated, and put in the hard yards because he wants to. And do you mean better as in once they grow up, or in school? Sure they're going to do better in school, but will they have a better life? Will they know what they want to do when they grow up? Will they enjoy their job and their life? That's what matters in the end. There is nothing wrong with not growing up to be a lawyer or a doctor.

Additionally, the American mother might actually take an active role in their education, just not to the extent advocated here.

And it's not all just speculation. I've met these people, they're my friends.

Obviously a Chinese mother would never allow a student to hide exam results.

That's like saying that the government doesn't let people do drugs.

And what is going to make a student with an American mother be self-motivated? What makes anyone self-motivated? Part of the point was that parental motivation leads to self motivation. Many children do not try because they believe they will not succeed. Once you see that you CAN succeed, you are much more likely to do so of your own accord as well.

I don't know, maybe a desire to succeed? Maybe they realise that they've got to do well in school because their future depends on it?

Parental motivation quashes self-motivation. If you're parents are forcing you to do something just because, you're not going to do it because you want to do it, you're doing it to because you're forced to. And subjects that were once fun become boring, because you're constantly studying them.

As a tutor, I have noticed that one of the biggest problems students have is a lack of a strong foundation in the basics (particularly with math, where each level builds on the previous). If students put in more effort at the lower levels, they could learn the higher levels much more easily. But the "American" method lets the child fall behind at the start, and the child may never catch up.

Is that an issue with the school system or the parenting? It could be both. And I'm not advocating letting children fall behind. I'm explaining why this extreme method is heavily flawed. Of course emphasis on education is beneficial, but not that sort of emphasis.

I think this is an exaggeration. It's not like these children have no friends and no social skills.

No, Amy's children actually did this. And sure they wont have 0 social skills, but their social development will be impaired.

Plus employers will take the person who is a knowledgeable, diligent worker over someone with marginally better social skills.

Well, before you get yourself a job, you have to pass an interview, which involves dealing with people. Additionally, if your working, you've got to deal with people. People who are socially impaired will have a hard time passing the interview and working with others.

It's a lot better than having your children fail...

You know, having social skills and succeeding aren't mutually exclusive.

Independence isn't that hard to learn; the main issue is one of rebellion. But part of the point of the "Chinese Mother" method is to instill a genuine desire to succeed. Perhaps the child will eventually rebel from playing piano, but it is more doubtful that she will rebel academically. Even if she puts in far less work, having a much better foundation from previous years of schooling will put her in a much better situation than her classmates.

Umm... It doesn't instil a desire to succeed. Speaking to the people raised by this method, they're motivated by other reasons, or they're not motivated at all. Being forced by your parents doesn't foster self-motivation. Additionally, people rebel as in, deliberately screw up in spite. It has been done.

Disclaimer: Yes, I think the methods depicted are extreme. But I think it's possible to promote this sort of attitude without making your children want to rebel (basically, without being an ******* about it). It's certainly better than a parent who takes no interest in her child's education and lets her child fall behind.

Yes, it's extreme, but I think this sort of "success at any cost attitude" is wrong. You should instil a good work ethic, by explaining to them that results don't come without effort, instead of forcing them to do work.

Even looking at myself, I have a terrible work ethic for school (for actual jobs it's a lot easier to work hard since there are fewer distractions ) and I procrastinate all the time (I'm posting here instead of writing a paper), in part due to the fact that my parents didn't push me. The truth is that I floated by my whole life based on being smart, so I never developed strong study habits or a good work ethic for school. I think my parents would have been more likely to push me if I hadn't been getting good grades regardless of my effort. But still, I feel like I'm trying now to instill these habits in myself, whereas the "Chinese mother" instills these habits in her children from a young age.

Not necessarily. Rebellion can occur, and once the pressure provided by the parents is lifted, it's possible that the adult will go against these habits, because following these habits may have brought serious pain.

 

[ballin4life]

You're consistently looking at the worst possible situation for the Chinese method (someone who rebels against the parents and has no social skills) and the best possible situation for the American method (someone who is self-motivated and has great social skills).

But which is more likely to happen?

I think it's clear to say that most students are NOT self-motivated. Children, having only lived a small portion of their lives, do not have the same time preferences as adults. Studies have shown that when asked if they want a cookie now or two cookies in 5 minutes, most children will take the cookie now. It's similar, but on a much more massive scale, for school work. Children would rather not do the work and feel better now, and they won't worry about some far off future where their grades will actually matter.

Don't you know anyone who is very smart, but still doesn't excel due to lack of motivation? I'd say those people are much more common under the American method than full out rebellion and failure are under the Chinese method.

 

[asianaussie]

I agree, it's common to find students with less inherent potential doing better (on an objective scale) than those who are more intelligent, but less hardworking. This is why the stereotype of asians being overly intelligent (not true at all) exists. This 'chinese' method, as it is being referred to here, instills a sense of hard work being the norm, and the pressure from the parents will at least partially act as a drive for achieving results. While it may not be appropriate when taken to this extreme, you can't really deny that it has the potential to produce what Amy Chua etc call 'results', even in unwilling students.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You're consistently looking at the worst possible situation for the Chinese method (someone who rebels against the parents and has no social skills) and the best possible situation for the American method (someone who is self-motivated and has great social skills).

I made that comparison to show that it is not the only method of achieving academic success.

But which is more likely to happen?

I think it's clear to say that most students are NOT self-motivated. Children, having only lived a small portion of their lives, do not have the same time preferences as adults. Studies have shown that when asked if they want a cookie now or two cookies in 5 minutes, most children will take the cookie now. It's similar, but on a much more massive scale, for school work. Children would rather not do the work and feel better now, and they won't worry about some far off future where their grades will actually matter.

That's why self-motivation should be taught by the parents and by the teachers.

Don't you know anyone who is very smart, but still doesn't excel due to lack of motivation? I'd say those people are much more common under the American method than full out rebellion and failure are under the Chinese method.

Yeah, that is true, but these "American" children have great fun and do fairly well. And in my experience, partial rebellion and failure are quite common. Maybe not full rebellion.

The fact is that neither method is perfect and I don't take the approach that the American method is better in all regards. I believe that the Chinese method has numerous drawback, at least when taken to this extreme. What I want to advocate here is a kind of hybrid. The children should be coerced into studying a reasonable amount, but given plenty of freedom to follow their own interests and socialise with their friends. That should hopefully produce balanced people, who do relatively well academically as well as in other areas. A complete lassiez-fare attitude is wrong, I agree, but so is a extreme attitude like that.

 

[Sucumbio]

Talk about enforcing negative stereotypes! Wow, well whatever works I guess... I would tend to appreciate the works of Maxine Hong Kingston over this other broad. She seems to be living in the past. Is her family from China or are they in America? As Kingston writes about in The Woman Warrior there's a stark difference between being raised Chinese in China, and being so-called ABC (American Born Chinese) which my mother happens to be. True... there heh, there is a strong focus on music. It's the idea that music is to be appreciated, but that to practice an instrument and to achieve high levels of success at that instrument not only demonstrates prowess in something challenging (worthwhile pride), but that the actual work produces greater stability of mind, body and soul.

In America, the strict upbringing is an amalgamation of ideas dating back centuries. There is this idea that by limiting your social life, you're avoiding the evils of Western life, which can lead to no good. It's no coincidence that most Chinese populations still keep secluded in "China Towns" in major cities, where outsiders (non-Chinese) are treated as guests, patrons, never family, never dating material. My own mother underwent incredible scrutiny when she decided to wed my very non-Chinese father. He was likened to a dog, because he worked with his hands, and found himself with little to no resources of his own... no estate, nothing to show for himself except the clothes on his back, and his meager earnings.

Social ineptness is absolutely the result of this type of upbringing, but the cost is considered minimal, because while all the "normal" kids are working to fix your burger, sweep your trash, pump your gas, etc. you'll be their boss. You have to remember that China as a whole underwent several various periods of despotism. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Last Emperor of China fell, and Communism took hold. During this incredible time of transitions, many of the able Chinese fled to America to avoid the wars. My grandfather was one of these, who came across in the hull of an iron ship in 1913, landing in San Francisco, and immediately transporting from there to meet relatives in Boston's China Town, where he went straight to work as an engineer. He married my grandmother, who was from the Islands, also Cantonese, and with her sister the three formed an unbeatable trio financially, allowing them to eventually move to the suburbs, where they would make their estate (which I'll one day inherit if there's anything left! damn oil prices ).

You're not wrong, btw in terms of how music appreciation is pretty much destroyed by this methodology. Whereas my great aunt was both a pianist and violinist (sigh) my mother opted to only learn piano. Her proper talent however lie in Art, in painting, drawing. Her work can still be found at the Museum School in Boston, as well as on a professional level at the Museum of Science, and at the Ocean Spray World on the Cape. She still holds my piano hostage back in Boston, despite knowing she'll never play it again. (I say mine because hers was ancient and had to be replaced, and while I was the one using the new one, they won't let it leave the house).

While growing up I met a Japanese family who essentially embodies what you've outlined. The eldest son of course underwent the brunt of the strict upbringing, focusing on everything academic, nothing of pleasure. Chess was a fantastic way for us to pass time, but unlike most of the other competition, he I could never defeat. It was worse than playing a computer, at least I could defeat computers. He played with a sickening precision, dead-pan, emotionless... it was enthralling and terrifying how good he was. His musical ability was equally as calculated. How do you calculate feeling? Soul? Be him. Be one like him... raised like him... everything is so precise and measured that you honestly ... you can tell. I won't say he was bad, because he played beautifully, and multiple instruments. His father was actually a professor of music. But... you could still tell that there was intense conflict within himself between wanting to let loose and play, perhaps making a mistake or two, simply to make the music more human, and less computerized. And of course his academics were top-notch, 4.0 GPA, never missing a class or assignment. Model student.

Then we have his brother, younger by only a year. Ha! Pot-head, always late, getting into trouble. A bass player. But when he played... you could feel it. He did make mistakes sometimes, but... that was refreshing actually. He'd just improvise. It always sounded great. You could tell he and the music were one, not that he was reproducing sounds however beautifully, but that he was becoming sound by way of the instrument. His grades were sub-par, and I was able to take him in chess repeatedly, unlike his older brother. It was actually his attitude toward music that helped me make the decision to stop formal lessons. Where I was slated to enroll at the NEC (New England Conservatory) and practicing 3 hours a day, I decided I'd had enough, because it wasn't enjoyable. It'd turned from hobby to chore, and I hated that, because I loved music, and I refused to allow it to kill my love for music like it had my mother.

Both he and I constantly underwent the negative reinforcement that this author writes about. It's not "good job" it's "well here's what you could have done better." And it definitely effected us both the same way. We tried less. We cared less. With every "do this instead" we'd do the opposite. And so his older brother went on to an Ivy League education, and he and I went on to a "safety" school. Was my grandmother right?

Is she? Well I dunno... here I am, in my mid-30's, and I actually... work at a gas station, lol. I've worked several jobs, and this is technically supposed to be temporary while I prepare for my final test to become certified to teach English, and then onto that career. But it just goes to show, that there may be some merit to what the author has to say about being strict on yourself at a young age. It's just that the methods seems... well, old. It doesn't leave much room for development in other areas, even though those other areas may not be important to an old Chinese grandmother.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The method seems to create extremes. On one end of the spectrum you've got the people who are moulded properly and on the other, the people who rebel. I guess extreme parenting produces extreme children. That's probably why a balance between the lassiez-fare "western" approach and the strict "chinese approach should be found.

 

[ballin4life]

But how do you know that these "rebels" aren't going to do the same under a more Western parenting approach?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But how do you know that these "rebels" aren't going to do the same under a more Western parenting approach?

Well... they wont rebel. It's just that they'll be like that anyway. This is why I'm advocating a middle-ground approach. In that approach enough emphasis on education will be placed upon the children to hopefully produce results, while not placing so much emphasis that they're driven to rebellion.

 

[asianaussie]

I don't think 'rebel' is really the right word when applied to a more Western approach, as the acts considered rebellious (eg. drugs, going out drinking on *shock horror* exam eves, etc) might be tolerable by 'Western' standards.

 

[KrazyGlue]

No system of parenting is perfect, and there will be "extreme" children under any system. However, I do agree that there should be a balance between the "Chinese" and "Western" styles. Bob is absolutely right that social skills are extremely important in terms of getting a good job. I recall reading a newspaper article (can't seem to find it now) that said the vast majority of CEOs of major companies and other extremely successful individuals had participated in sports teams. While on the teams, they learned important skills such as working with other individuals, dealing with setbacks, etc. I feel like the "Chinese" system does not account for intangible qualities such as this.

Now, the "Chinese" system probably produces very successful students at a fairly high rate. Asians do, after all, rank the highest in the US in terms of most major academic measurements. Many of them probably become very successful scientists, engineers, mathematicians, doctors, etc. But there's something to be said for losing your childhood. You can never get it back. Getting straight A's is not worth losing the first 18 years of your life, in my opinion.

Finally, a few years after you've graduated from college, nobody cares what your college GPA was, what college you've gone to, etc. The main factor then is what you've done since you graduated. And you're going to struggle to find good jobs with weak social skills. So, getting straight A's at the cost of social skills is not worth it.

And obviously, a completely laissez-faire style of parenting will not work the vast majority of the time. I think the key is to push your son/daughter, but make sure they don't lose their childhood in the process. At least push them hard in key subjects, but don't throw the kitchen sink at them if they get a B in 5th grade art.

Personally (though I'm biased), I feel as though I've been raised under a good mix of these two systems. As a junior in high school, my current GPA is roughly 3.5, and my parents are fine with that. I put effort into my schoolwork, but I don't kill myself over it. And my parents let me go to parties, play football or basketball with my friends, listen to whatever music I want, watch movies and TV, play video games, have my own computer and cell phone, etc. Of course, they force me to do so in moderation, making sure it doesn't impact my schoolwork. But I've always had a very good relationship with my parents.

*rant over*