Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
kcal09
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Stradivarius] She arranged sleepovers at our house for my sister and me, took us shopping, and taught us how to apply makeup. Looking pretty and having good social skills go a long way in any profession. Again, more opportunity for success.
[/quote]Your mom did a great job.
I wish more people had wardrobe skills. Unfortunately Americans have closets full of moo-moos and sweats. Being as rich as we are, and shopping as much as we do, Americans look incredibly unkept and ragged. It OK for men, but unkept women look very unattractive, IMO.[/quote]
I noticed this when I first came to CA. People walk around in flip-flops, shorts and T-shirts all year around.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Stradivarius] She arranged sleepovers at our house for my sister and me, took us shopping, and taught us how to apply makeup. Looking pretty and having good social skills go a long way in any profession. Again, more opportunity for success.
[/quote]Your mom did a great job.
I wish more people had wardrobe skills. Unfortunately Americans have closets full of moo-moos and sweats. Being as rich as we are, and shopping as much as we do, Americans look incredibly unkept and ragged. It OK for men, but unkept women look very unattractive, IMO.[/quote]
I noticed this when I first came to CA. People walk around in flip-flops, shorts and T-shirts all year around.
Participant[quote=davelj]When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.
I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).
I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.
Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.[/quote]
This world needs nerds, artists and “normal” people. I believe that the best approach to raise kids is to mix it up: teach them discipline, hard work but also how to enjoy life. Granted, it’s very hard to do and there are not many parents who are able to do this as they themselves have to be well balanced and intelligent to do this.
Participant[quote=davelj]When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.
I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).
I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.
Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.[/quote]
This world needs nerds, artists and “normal” people. I believe that the best approach to raise kids is to mix it up: teach them discipline, hard work but also how to enjoy life. Granted, it’s very hard to do and there are not many parents who are able to do this as they themselves have to be well balanced and intelligent to do this.
Participant[quote=davelj]When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.
I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).
I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.
Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.[/quote]
This world needs nerds, artists and “normal” people. I believe that the best approach to raise kids is to mix it up: teach them discipline, hard work but also how to enjoy life. Granted, it’s very hard to do and there are not many parents who are able to do this as they themselves have to be well balanced and intelligent to do this.
Participant[quote=davelj]When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.
I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).
I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.
Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.[/quote]
This world needs nerds, artists and “normal” people. I believe that the best approach to raise kids is to mix it up: teach them discipline, hard work but also how to enjoy life. Granted, it’s very hard to do and there are not many parents who are able to do this as they themselves have to be well balanced and intelligent to do this.
Participant[quote=davelj]When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.
I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).
I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.
Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.[/quote]
This world needs nerds, artists and “normal” people. I believe that the best approach to raise kids is to mix it up: teach them discipline, hard work but also how to enjoy life. Granted, it’s very hard to do and there are not many parents who are able to do this as they themselves have to be well balanced and intelligent to do this.
ParticipantJust curious why your family reacted so negatively, are those concerns something that you share with them or is it just a question of taste? I think if you and your husband like the house you should go for it.
ParticipantJust curious why your family reacted so negatively, are those concerns something that you share with them or is it just a question of taste? I think if you and your husband like the house you should go for it.
ParticipantJust curious why your family reacted so negatively, are those concerns something that you share with them or is it just a question of taste? I think if you and your husband like the house you should go for it.
ParticipantJust curious why your family reacted so negatively, are those concerns something that you share with them or is it just a question of taste? I think if you and your husband like the house you should go for it.
ParticipantJust curious why your family reacted so negatively, are those concerns something that you share with them or is it just a question of taste? I think if you and your husband like the house you should go for it.
ParticipantThis bigger one went in and out of escrow a couple times. It’s condition is not as good as the first one and it’s a 2 story home which may be less attractive to some buyers. As far as distressed properties in Stonebridge, I think there will be more to come, especially in the higher end neighborhoods with purchase dates around 2005/06 when buyers were paying crazy amounts to get in these homes.
ParticipantThis bigger one went in and out of escrow a couple times. It’s condition is not as good as the first one and it’s a 2 story home which may be less attractive to some buyers. As far as distressed properties in Stonebridge, I think there will be more to come, especially in the higher end neighborhoods with purchase dates around 2005/06 when buyers were paying crazy amounts to get in these homes.
-
AuthorPosts
