I think this is a little unfair. Tiger parenting is never designed to make the child into some kind of Issac Newton figure. Tiger parents want their children to become financially successful - lawyers, doctors, etc. High-skill workers. The fundamental difference between these professions and say the sciences is that you don't have to come up with anything NEW to be successful. As a thought experiment, you can find a prominent lawyer or doctor and just work towards turning yourself into a literal COPY of that person and if you can really succeed in doing so, you will have made it. By contrast, trying to turn yourself into a literal copy of a living scientist is useless in itself, because there is no guarantee that you will be lucky enough to discover anything new.

Also, let's not forget that sometimes the reason "there is not a clearly delineated pathway to achievement" could well be because the existence of such a thing would disrupt existing social hierarchies.

The place where I observed a lot of tiger parented people running out of nice standardized road was either (a) at the very most preliminary steps towards research (Honours thesis in the British/Australian system or MSc coursework or masters in the US) or (b) having to independently conjure up project ideas in a company (i.e. moving out of junior development roles).

It's not exactly Isaac Newton territory.

>I think this is a little unfair. Tiger parenting is never designed to make the child into some kind of Issac Newton figure. Tiger parents want their children to become financially successful - lawyers, doctors, etc.

And why is this their call?

Because they are the children's parents?

Yes, and because most children will sit around and play video games without external motivation.

Did your parents decide your profession? What's next, arranged marriages?

As a counterpoint, I would like to say that a lot of research still is 'routine intellectual work'. Movers and shakers are rare and far apart. The vast majority of academia are collectively and slowly boiling over problems, rather than taking bold and independent strives.

At a certain level of abstraction, perhaps, but someone who's only good at learning and regurgitating existing knowledge is still not going to do well at even routine research. The "routine" of bulk research is still a higher-order routine than standardized tests.

> As a counterpoint, I would like to say that a lot of research still is 'routine intellectual work'. Movers and shakers are rare and far apart.

While this is very true, the "movers and shakers" are the ones who set the standard of a research culture. Frankly, that's why the US has a major research advantage over most (probably all) countries that strongly embrace tiger parenting.

It's fairly routine, but by the standards of, say, the LSAT or GRE, it's hardly signposted at all. I kinda understated my point in the original post by not making it clear we're not talking about discoveries of breathtaking originality; more "do your first independent work" at the honors or 'new senior dev' level.

I disagree that Tiger Parenting produces a higher percentage of children that are uncreative. I've known many "tiger children" that are creative and perfectly content in unfamiliar intellectual environments.

I think Tiger Parenting simply increases the floor. Therefore, many children have artificially inflated marks relative to their true intelligence. When these children are put in an environment in which they are unable to rely on outworking others, they falter. They are not uncreative, they're just not intelligent.

There’s definitely downsides. I went through some experimental program in elementary school focused on skill sets that would help with standardized tests.

In many ways it, combined with my laziness as a kid made things harder. I sailed though tests and did good enough, but always had academic interests outside of school.

I turned out great, but I do wish I had treated school as something other than a ticket punching experience.

>From my experience, Tiger Parenting is a very effective way of propelling people through standardized testing and competitive exams/admissions. I think it tends to stop working once there is not a clearly delineated pathway to achievement - for example in independent research.

Or you know, child happiness and personal fulfilment.

They're not going to be very happy and fulfilled when the U.S. economy is a smoldering wreck, they're having to work day and night to pay the taxes needed to support the baby boomers, and are boning up on their Mandarin and facing the prospect of leaving their families behind to emigrate for better opportunities.

People have followed their dreams in much worse times -- and with much less luxuries.

Following your dreams is a luxury for people in the global top 5% (mostly in the west). Everyone else is locked in bitter competition. I'm not convinced America will stay comfortably above that fray over my daughter's lifetime.

>Following your dreams is a luxury for people in the global top 5% (mostly in the west).

You'd be really surprised.

People follow their dreams even in the bottom 5% -- including as refugees, in times of war, and in all kinds of bad situations, and in all kinds of cultures, not just "the west".

The "starving artist" (who does or does not make it) is not something out of fiction, and neither is the piss poor bootstrapped entrepreneur.