Parenting and Students

How much parenting is reasonable? I was interested to learn about the motives behind the parenting standards of a “Chinese mother”. The mother in “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” had a list of things her daughters were never allowed to do. This included having playdates and not playing the piano or violin. Because of the strict parenting, the kids were very successful musicians and students on paper. Flawless grades and performances at Carnegie Hall are very impressive, but what does it matter to the kids if they have to be perfect all of the time? These achievements are taken for granted, not as personal achievements but rather tasks they have to complete. I imagine that for these kids, getting all A’s in high-level subjects is not something they are proud of, rather a relief that they won’t be reprimanded by their mother. This creates an unhealthy relationship with learning and any type of achievement.

In contrast, the over-involved parent described in “Raising Successful Children” is also detrimental to children. When kids are praised for every small accomplishment or apply for colleges “with” their parents, the kids don’t learn the satisfaction of achieving something on their own. While it is important to encourage children to succeed, succeeding for them only benefits the parent rather than the child.

There needs to be a happy balance of parenting. Not too overbearing, but also setting up some rules to keep children are safe. Children need to learn how to fail and have motivation to keep trying. But how is this balance achieved? There is no universal parenting norm and that makes it especially difficult for schools. Parenting is the one variable that schools cannot control, so schools have to find a way to deal with students who have been raised differently. Parent-teacher conferences are valuable for parents to learn how their kid is doing in school, but they should also be a chance for teachers to learn about how parents raise their kids. This way, the parents become more involved in education and hopefully work with teachers to educate kids. Not overbearing with loads of extra work or too lax with deadlines, parenting in a happy medium can lead to more successful students.

Beyond the Classroom

A person cannot be entirely self sufficient. Technically, yes, a person can live alone and avoid all interaction to survive. But realistically, people need to communicate, share, and contribute to community to have a fulfilling life. School cannot teach students just rote memorization of facts. That could get students passing marks on standardized test such at ACTs, but do little in developing individuals that uniquely contribute to the community.

Next year, I will be attending a conservatory. Many people think that conservatory students spend all their time locked up in dim practice rooms, only emerging for lessons and classes. While there are some students that go to that extreme, the majority don’t because that lifestyle would make them crazy. There needs to be a balance of rigor and focus with communication and interaction with others.

One of the most important things I’ve learned from being a musician is how to work with anybody. I have to take whatever sparse work I can get. That means that I rarely choose who I play music with. In orchestras, I have to be able to work with even the weirdest, most annoying people you can imagine. Because in the end, people are hired for their musicianship but keep their job by being able to work with others. This means I need to keep my cool and stay focused in rehearsal, share bowings, and be courteous. Music is all about connections. The more acquaintances I make throughout my career, the more likely it is for me to get a job through recommendations or auditions. Musicians help other good ones out, but make note of the not so good. Even if a player is fantastic, refusing to pass on information about bowings could lose them a job. An overall antisocial attitude can be seen as a lack of interest or motivation. This person may not get called back to a job and word may spread that this person isn’t good to hire for any job. I know of a few high-powered employers (conductors etc.) that have a “blacklist” of people they will never hire again or recommend.

Where did I learn effective communication skills? In school, of course. Group projects, class discussions, and even just being in a classroom environment has given me effective tools to communicate in the classical music world. If anything, I’ve learned to value the variety of education I’ve received. Anyone can search facts on a database, but nothing can perfectly replace the class discussions and collaborations. School should continue to emphasize not only rote facts and formulas, rather an integrative learning experience.

Competition: a guest post by Tina

Hi, I'm Tina, author of a blog about faith (The Faith Question), and today I'll be contributing a guest post to Cordelia's blog about cooperation. In this post I'll share my perspective about how cooperation has been more central to human evolution and success than competition.

I'll start with this word: competition. Too often, we attribute concepts like the propagation of our species, our success at school or at work, and our athletic performance to this word. But is competition the core of human survival and success?

Certainly not.

Another "c" word, cooperation, has influenced our development as a human species in coordination more fundamentally than competition. There's evidence that cooperation's been a trait that evolution has selected for in the way people conduct affairs in most places and cultures--they expect reciprocity. How is reciprocity a cooperative behavior? In a reciprocal relationship, two parties benefit. Competition, on the other hand, is a zero-sum game: one party benefits while the other suffers. 

What evidence is there, then, that cooperation's been selected for throughout evolution? Robert L. Trivers, American evolutionary biologist and sociobiologist, found early hunter gatherer populations to have characteristics favorable to the development of cooperation. This Psychology Today article brushes over some of those characteristics, including longer lifespans of members of society, a small percentage of people that leave the society, individuals needing the help of others, and a lot of parental care for young. In early hunter and gatherer populations, as Trivers also found, individuals who refused to "reciprocate"--in other words, cooperate--were left out of the affairs of the society. Through weeding out those individuals unable or unwilling to cooperate from society, cooperation became a more common trait in members of human society.

Where, then, does competition fit into the story of human evolution? Interestingly enough, competition is a form of cooperation. What is at the heart of cooperation but working to advance the goals of other individuals or a group as a whole? When our more primitive predecessors fought over resources or territory, they pushed each other to fight more viciously. In this way, they competed, but cooperated. Also, after competing, only the stronger of our predecessors survived, which cooperatively benefited the evolution of humans.

There is also evidence that competition in itself is not a universal trait, thus strengthening the claim that it is a sole form of cooperation. As is noted in this article, the Zuni and Iroquois Indian tribes were found in a study conducted by American anthropologist Margaret Mead to be unfamiliar with competition. If competition were in fact universal or a fundamental human instinct, would they not have experienced it already?

As Americans, some may criticize how much our capitalistic society often emphasizes and encourages competition. For those that think that way, I would suggest that they recognize that competition is grounded in cooperation. Let's say you apply for job position knowing that the only candidates for the position are yourself and another individual with similar credentials. You may push yourself out of your comfort zone to make your application or interview exceptional, and your counterpart does the same. The competition between you, then, is also cooperation, because you're bringing out the best in each other.

Now let's suppose the same scenario, except with a slight difference: the other candidate for the job position was destined to lose because you've got a connection in the company and knew from the start you'd be hired over anybody. And because you are guaranteed a position, you never strive to improve your resume, application, or interview. Your counterpart, however, does. In that case, the lack of competition between you and your counterpart fails to bring out the best in both of you, and thus there is no cooperation between you.

I'd like to pose a final question to readers of this blog post: do you agree with my assessment of cooperation and competition? Having experienced both behaviors, do you believe they are more intertwined or less related than I've described here?

Orchestra Tours

Travelling with an orchestra is no easy feat. My first major orchestra tour was to Germany my Freshman year, but I don't remember anything about the actual transport because I was too excited exploring new cities with my friends. As a violist, all I had to worry about was my case fitting in the overhead bin.

Last week, my school orchestra and jazz band toured California (Los Angeles, Disneyland, Hollywood). I didn't think that travel would be difficult at all because I figured that everyone would just keep track of their own instruments and luggage. Personally, I was fine travelling with my viola, but other kids had much more to schlep. Some had two instruments, had to lug around heavy cymbal cases, or prayed that their cellos would survive the flight in the cargo hold. Such travel would be difficult with a dozen people, but this group had almost one hundred. Although, we chartered our own plane so I thought at least getting through the airport would be a breeze. I was wrong, again.

The morning of our flight, we arrived at Midway before 5AM. Surprisingly, the airport was the opposite of desolate. Check-in lines were the longest I've seen and our tour guide was panicking. "Come on everyone, let's go faster, we need to board in twenty minutes..." She reiterated to anyone in our group T-shirts. I shrugged my shoulders as I saw the snaking check-in line I would be standing in for at least another fifteen minutes. Then there still was security.

Our group got completely split up. Groups of two or four students ran through the terminal to our gate; of course we didn't want the plane to leave without us. The plane waited for all of us because we made up 90% of the plane, but I felt sorry for the few passengers not in our group who had to wait for us.

It's exhausting to get a full-sized orchestra loaded onto buses, into the airport, checked in, through security, onto a plane, off the plane, through luggage claim, and onto more buses. I was completely spent by the time we actually had free time at Santa Monica Beach and I didn't even have to carry heavy percussion equipment!

I have much appreciation for my directors: nobody got lost, hurt, or left behind through all the crazy travelling. It takes the whole ensemble to stay alert and calm to make it to any destination on time. That was no easy feat, considering there were many spaced-out freshmen on the trip. I had a blast once we could break off into smaller groups and explore, but such a trip is not something I'd want to be on (let alone organize) in the near future. Realistically, I will have to tour as a professional musician, but at least I will be with like-minded and organized people.

Children's Books

I've been a bookworm for as long as I can remember. As a kid, every night I would snuggle up with my blanket and a shiny hardcover picture-book. The books felt much more important and grown-up than my plastic blocks. Before I could read, I absorbed the pictures while my parents read out loud to me. These big, colorful pictures are some of the most important parts of children's books because they're the first kids' eyes are drawn to. Similar to cartoons on TV, the illustrations give children a visual of the action and direct reader's attention to important aspects of the story. 

I recently re-read a favorite children's book of mine, "I Lost my Bear" by Jules Feiffer, and was surprised how the pictures portrayed each character. Large, watercolor illustrations take up most of each page and dialogue is hand-written in speech bubbles. The artwork isn't highly polished like textbook drawings, rather they are supposed to be the story told from the main character's hand. The young girl telling her story to other young kids makes her experiences more relatable.

The main conflict in this story is that the main character, a girl of about five years old, lost her favorite stuffed bear. She asks her parents and sister for help, but ultimately they tell her to think hard and find it herself. The girl, although the narrator, is drawn to scale to the other characters and is the shortest. Most of the illustrations focus on the setting (rooms in the house) and bright solid colors (walls, floors, etc). The girl eventually finds her bear on her own, so this story teaches kids about power structures within families. Because her parents and older sister tell her to find the bear on her own, it shows that kids should listen to their elders, but not completely depend on them. The girl's perseverance to find the bear pays off. Although she doesn't find her bear at first, she does enjoy playing with other newly-found toys along the way. This also teaches kids to appreciate the many material possessions they have and not obsess over any single one. 

The girl's many stuffed animals shows the aspect of children's books that children are close to nature. The animals are not real, but the girl shows more affection towards her stuffed animals than any of her family. She's deeply distressed about not being able to find her lost bear, but not how her family is unhelpful. This shows the infallibility of humans and modern lifestyles (dad absorbed in the newspaper, mom washing dishes etc.) but still regards animals worthy of children's time. 

I have no memory of this book consciously affecting my actions (I received it when I was three), but the fact that I can remember it fourteen years later proves that I at least absorbed it. I surely identified with the main character because I had many beloved stuffed animals that got upset over misplacing. My grandparents who gave me the book wanted to teach me that I should at least look for lost toys before pestering my parents. Children much more likely absorb a message from colorful books than chiding adults. 

New Historicism

The idea of an white, European, male dominated history has always bothered me: as a kid I believed my history books told the complete truth. I had no reason to doubt the “correctness” of my lessons because I could repeat facts and score well on tests. The books weren't lying, but they had a specific, Western view of history. Starting in first grade, my class celebrated Christopher Columbus with a day off of school and by learning a catchy song I still remember parts of to this day: “Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492”. As third-graders, we all looked forward to the Thanksgiving feast where half of us dressed up as Pilgrims and the other as Indians brought food to share. So of course I saw American colonization as a good thing and didn’t think that anyone objected. From the viewpoint of history I was told, everyone in America seemed happy with colonization. As I got older, social studies classes started to cover other aspects of American history. The first time I learned about the Trail of Tears, I was shocked. It was hard for me to make the jump from happy Indian friends at Thanksgiving to banishing them. I learned that a positive event in an history from an American perspective wasn't always seen as positive in others. 

Of course first-graders aren't told how Native Americans were treated. Kids need to understand single deaths, like in just about every Disney movie, before they can comprehend the genocide of almost an entire population. They are taught that America is good- to be proud of their home. So, American history is taught like a story book: the hero (British colonists) is sent by his evil stepfather (Britain) to a strange land (America), discovers treasure (natural resources), makes companions (Native Americans), the stepfather wants in on the riches, and the hero valiantly defeats the stepfather (American Revolution).

New historicists would look at how American children are taught their own country's history as a chance to learn about American culture. Classic historicists would just touch the surface, saying that the source of history is the most important detail to understanding it. They specifically look at the lens of history: who is writing the source, what perspective is shown, etc. New historicists would look at not only what the lens shows about the perspective of the storyteller, but also the society. They examine  historical accounts like artifacts, asking what they can find out about the culture by how they choose to tell history, who they write as the hero, what daily life is like, and what other narratives are absent. Because we teach kids the "story" of America, it shows that our culture is goal-oriented. Even today we romanticize the the "American dream". This is also based on how American history is told like a hero's tale. 

By thinking of history as a web of stories rather than a single story line is the basis of new historicism. Learning about this perspective made me curious about what else I can discover about history through a new historicist lens.

Literary Approaches to Hamlet

I am amazed at how many different literary analyses of Shakespeare's Hamlet exist. There is no single "right" way to interpret Hamlet because critics can only examine the work, Shakespeare, and his time. No one can ask Shakespeare what he "meant" in certain parts of Hamlet, so interpretations can vary greatly. One approach to Hamlet is Psychoanalytical.

Crtitics using this approach view Hamlet's struggle as internal. His desire to kill Claudius and prevent Gertrude from sleeping with Claudius are results of an Oedipus complex. Basically, all of Hamlet's hostilities stem from an internal struggle of conscious vs. unconscious. The unconscious repressed memories or desires etc. fight to surface and Hamlet spirals into a need to avenge his father. Symptoms of Hamlet's Oedipal Complex are his many descriptions of dreams for events, mocking/revulsion of sex, and obsession with death. In this approach, Hamlet's past is the cause of Hamlet's troubles. Of course, the internal struggle comes to light after his father's death, but it was always a part of Hamlet.

A problem with this approach is that readers don't know Hamlet's behavior before Claudius takes the throne. Was it really a bad relationship with his father and mother to blame for Hamlet's Oedipus Complex? Is it really Hamlet's past that causes him issues in the future?

This is where literary criticism runs into issues: readers cannot know the full story. An almost polar opposite to Hamlet is a Marxist approach. Instead of "psycho-drama" (family and personal), "social drama" (social classes) is more of the cause for Hamlet's conflict. Marxist literary critics would see Hamlet's revenge against Claudius as a lower class (which Hamlet seems to identify more with) sticking it to the upper class. However, both approaches interpret Hamlet as a window into Shakespeare's life. Psychoanalysts would say Shakespeare was wrote about his repression, while Marxists would say Shakespeare wrote about his expereince with class conflict. Shakespeare could have had both issues, but no one can be certain that one facet of his life over the other influenced his works.

No single literary criticism can express an author's true message in writing. Specific approaches to literary criticism could interpret some correct aspects, but completely misinterpret others. To better understand a work such as Hamlet, it is crucial to examine multiple literary criticisms to get a more complete picture of analyses. Then, the reader must decide which aspects of each approach fit the best with their interpretation of the work.