After reading both Freakonomics and Outliers, I faced the decision of whether parents mattered or not. In Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner gave off the idea that they in fact didn't matter as much as people believe and the things they do for their children cannot determine their success. Meanwhile, in Outliers Gladwell analyzed the over protective or controlling parents of the high class who practiced concerted cultivation in order to see their child succeed. What stood out to me was the fact that both books had proof or studies to back up their opinions yet they stood on different sides. So who was right? Is it better to leave kids on their own to determine right or wrong or lead them there on a tight leash? This is the question that I tried to answer the whole time while reading.
I think the concerted cultivation, as much as I hate to say it, sees more success in their children. These are the parents who as Gladwell explained plan their child's birth date in order to give them an advantage at becoming a professional athlete or force them to practice their instrument for hours until they master it. Usually those who practice concerted cultivation are the ones who were successful in their own life or careers and they want their children to shadow that. Although its been said that sometimes the children of these type of parents are the ones to rebel, trends have also proved that they have been the most successful. This is because they are given opportunities to succeed unlike those who experience the parenting style of natural growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment