Raising a child to go to HYPSM

>Let's assume the kid is a complete sperg or homeschooled, (and I said he would be homeschooled in my original post). Is there anything else that could be done on a purely scholastic level, (which excludes extracurricular activities)?

I understand where you are coming from. However being able to communicate and collaborate is equally important as intelligence in the science field 100%. So encouraging them to socialize is incredible crucial. One to help them get admitted. Two to help them get a job.

>Unless he doesn't consider the setting of the undergraduate school that important
I meant that even in STEM, depending specifically on what he wants to study math and physics included, there could easily be significantly better options than HYPSM.

if they want to go into a masters program or phd program after a bachelors i would actually reccomend that they steer clear of HYPSM. These schools provide prestige when you stop at a bachelors, but aren't an overwhelming factor for getting into grad school. More important is the relationships made, research done, and intelligence gained.

>I'm convinced that the best way to ensure happiness of the child is to give him the best chances of furthering his future career
I wholeheartedly disagree with this.

>I understand where you are coming from. However being able to communicate and collaborate is equally important as intelligence in the science field 100%. So encouraging them to socialize is incredible crucial. One to help them get admitted. Two to help them get a job.
Okay, but practically, what would I do if I homeschooled him for other, very compelling reasons?

>I meant that even in STEM, depending specifically on what he wants to study math and physics included, there could easily be significantly better options than HYPSM.
I was going to mention Caltech, but I guess I forgot to do so. In any case, the point is, through a purely scholastic means, how could I make the most qualified student possible for a top university?

>More important is the relationships made, research done, and intelligence gained.
For relationships, many people say this is the most compelling aspect of HYPSM at the undergraduate level. For research, this isn't that important for the vast majority of students at the undergraduate level. As for intelligence gained, I suppose that's more up to him than any university he might decide to attend.

>I wholeheartedly disagree with this.
Well, I don't mean to say it's all-inclusive, but I think one of the most important things a caretaker could do for their child is make sure they have as many opportunities for higher education that they are capable of, and being qualified for the universities I mentioned would go a long way towards this end.

What you described is the surefire method to getting your child to an hero by age 25 with acute depression and some form(s) of autism.

Assuming they don't off themselves though, yes, they'll be incredibly good at scoring high on tests.
That's it. They'd be an excellent student.
And again, they'd be autistic and/or depressed. Sure, they might be accepted in the most prestigious university in the world...if they don't just up and sperg out as soon as they're in an unfamiliar setting.
If you, however, made sure they studied hard, but also taught them about several other things, and let them experience those things without falling into any sort of addiction, it'd be alright.

>Well, I don't mean to say it's all-inclusive, but I think one of the most important things a caretaker could do for their child is make sure they have as many opportunities for higher education that they are capable of, and being qualified for the universities I mentioned would go a long way towards this end.

I'm not that guy, but here's my two cents. You're not wrong. Your THEORY is alright; ensuring a good, stable future for your child. Put into practice though, you'll likely end up with a kid that hates studying and hates you.

The most important thing to do as a parent is guarantee your child is happy. Future be damned, focus on their happiness, and guide them in the right way. Don't put them through living hell in their early stages so they can be happy "later".

>What you described is the surefire method to getting your child to an hero by age 25 with acute depression and some form(s) of autism.
Please. Chinese students preparing for the Gaokao have it much worse and the suicide rates aren't that high.

What I'm proposing wouldn't require that much time as you think. Again, they wouldn't actually take the courses, so their workload would be considerably reduced, perhaps less than many high school students taking a fraction of the AP exams. This is supposed to make the learning as efficient as possible.

>Sure, they might be accepted in the most prestigious university in the world
This is what the thread is supposed to be about: the feasibility of having the kid accepted in the universities on the plan I suggested, or on modification or extension of the plan.

>Put into practice though, you'll likely end up with a kid that hates studying and hates you.
In my opinion, when people say this all the time about Asian students, it's a meme and only that, not based on reality. Students in China have it much worse, but understand that their parents only want what's best for them.

>guarantee your child is happy.
If we lived in a setting where hard labor were necessary or scoring well on a single test was almost certainly the only way for the child and perhaps the family to avoid absolute poverty, delaying their immediate happiness for their future, long-lasting happiness.

>Don't put them through living hell in their early stages so they can be happy "later".
I don't think this would be a living hell, but even if it were, why not?

>Well, I don't mean to say it's all-inclusive
I agree this is a huge part to developing happiness, dont get me wrong. I disagree however that it is the main or majority metric for happiness.

>For relationships, many people say this is the most compelling aspect of HYPSM
I am confused, as i havent heard this. From my experience the more prestigious a school the less interaction they tend to have with professors. As the focus is on research rather than students. And yes intelligence is mostly dependent on him.

>Okay, but practically, what would I do if I homeschooled him for other, very compelling reasons?
Homeschooling is never a good route to prepare a child for life or college, hands down. But obviously there are certain medical circumstance that prevent that. School is just as much social as it is educational, so you need to supplement developing emotional intelligence with other avenues. Get them involved in social/educational activities and groups so they learn how to communicate better. An ability to communicate well can absolutely be learned. It is also will be equally important in being successful as intelligence.

Emotional Intelligence and Logical intelligence (for lack of a better phrase) are 50/50

>I don't think this would be a living hell, but even if it were, why not?

What you have described is borderline too much unless a child craves it. The fearful reality is that they drop out of college because of emotional distress, which is a reality with the rigorous proposal you have created.

There is a high potential that such a program could prevent them from ever being happy later in life.

Success/career/intelligence in no way equals happiness.

>Please. Chinese students preparing for the Gaokao have it much worse and the suicide rates aren't that high.

What I'm proposing wouldn't require that much time as you think. Again, they wouldn't actually take the courses, so their workload would be considerably reduced, perhaps less than many high school students taking a fraction of the AP exams. This is supposed to make the learning as efficient as possible.
You can't really talk about having a kid study and learn things without saying it'd take a long time.
Reducing the workload by not taking an actual course and avoiding all the usual bullshit that comes with it (even if there are important things to be learned from that bullshit) sounds good, but learning is something that takes time. What doesn't take much time is cramming, and that could do it...but personally, I find cramming stressful.

Also, on an off note, the suicide thing might have been much, but I wouldn't call that example of a chinese student a happy person.

>This is what the thread is supposed to be about: the feasibility of having the kid accepted in the universities on the plan I suggested, or on modification or extension of the plan.
Then yeah, it could work.

>In my opinion, when people say this all the time about Asian students, it's a meme and only that, not based on reality. Students in China have it much worse, but understand that their parents only want what's best for them.
It's really not a meme. The students that manage to successfully cope, or, hell, manage to be happy during an -intense- study schedule are a minority.

>If we lived in a setting where hard labor were necessary or scoring well on a single test was almost certainly the only way for the child and perhaps the family to avoid absolute poverty, delaying their immediate happiness for their future, long-lasting happiness.
In that particular setting, sure. People study -hard- to leave poor hell-holes often.

Last point: I don't like it. Opinion. Character limit.

>I disagree however that it is the main or majority metric for happiness.
I think the main metric for happiness would be finding a fulfilling career, and I think the best thing a caretaker can do to this end would be to send them to the best university for their child, which I think is more important than trying to foster particular interests, especially since even the most precocious high school graduates rarely have a clear idea of what their future career will consist of.

> From my experience the more prestigious a school the less interaction they tend to have with professors.
I was talking about the student communities.

>Homeschooling is never a good route to prepare a child for life or college, hands down.
It's the only way I, (and I suppose the child as well), can have complete control over the curriculum. Also, any private school that I would consider adequate would probably be both too difficult to get into and too expensive.

>School is just as much social as it is educational
This is more or less true depending on the student and the environment. The primary goal of most high school students should be to get into the best college. I consider the relationships made in college much more valuable.

> so you need to supplement developing emotional intelligence with other avenues.
He can join a sports team, maybe the Boy Scouts, but I wouldn't sacrifice 1% of his scholastic success just so he could learn to socialize better.

>Emotional Intelligence
The most important emotional intelligence to master would be the skill of self-control, which could be gained purely through scholastic achievement. Very few academic geniuses are remembered particularly for their social skills.

Student going to an HYPSM next year. Literally no amount of scholasticism alone will score you admission. Schools are emphasizing essays more and more. They want students with a certain personality and flair.

>What you have described is borderline too much unless a child craves it
If somebody wanted it, they could learn to get fives on many of the exams just by cramming a few weeks or days before. Spread out across the entire year for four or five tests make it much more feasible.

>The fearful reality is that they drop out of college because of emotional distress, which is a reality with the rigorous proposal you have created.
This is deeply concerning. What would be the sources of this "emotional distress."

>Success/career/intelligence in no way equals happiness.
If I gave the child enough free time outside of this curriculum, this should be enough for them to develop their own passions independently and have a "good childhood."

Yeah, let me step back for a second here. What you and i both have described will not necessarily harm a child emotionally.

>This is deeply concerning
What matters more is how you implement your education, which is the subject of entire textbooks and far too much to get into. And it is important to be self aware of how your methods affect your child. But it is absolutely possible to do everything you have stated and produce a contributing happy member of society. Just be careful as to when you are pushing too hard. Raising a child is definitely not an easy.

>If I gave the child enough free time outside
Yes, i am glad we are on the same page. The child absolutely needs socialization and freedom to choose their own path.

With that said, the rigor and expectation that going to a HYPSM school entails can make them sad/frustrated/depressed/etc. Potentially they could be much happier by not going to such a demanding school and getting a middle-of-the-road job.

>You can't really talk about having a kid study and learn things without saying it'd take a long time.
I'm speaking from experience. With the exception of some of the exams, (mainly the science ones), you can cram for a five in less than two weeks, possibly even less than a week.

>but learning is something that takes time
They are learning to get fives on the exam. There's nothing wrong with that, any more than learning to pass a particular exam in college.

>What doesn't take much time is cramming, and that could do it...but personally, I find cramming stressful.
It wouldn't really be cramming. You would be learning the material over the course of school year.

>
Also, on an off note, the suicide thing might have been much, but I wouldn't call that example of a chinese student a happy person.
This is to answer the suicide charge. I would say this curriculum would be more stressful than the vast majority of students, but it would be less stressful than many students who take less than half the number of AP exams, in addition to other classes and extracurricular activities.

> The students that manage to successfully cope, or, hell, manage to be happy during an -intense- study schedule are a minority.
And yet, by far, Asian American students are the most academically successful ethnic groups, (and in some cases, the highest earning ethnic group), in the US, and perhaps in other countries.

Long story short, I think that getting into HYPSM will do absolutely nothing for their happiness.

>People study -hard- to leave poor hell-holes often.
And the point is that he would be working hard to get himself in a better position where he can explore his passions.
To summarize my point, far too often, children devote themselves to activities that have no profit to them, or worse, actually debilitate them or leave them more corrupted than they were before. With this way, the child will never be uselessly idle. He will always have a goal in mind. He can always improve his chances at getting a five on a test, and if that's secure, he can always improve his ACT or even his SAT scores. I suppose there's the possibility that he's on track to getting fives on all his tests and somehow gets a 36 and 2400 on the SAT, but that's unlikely.

>What would be the straightest, purely scholastic route to scoring admission to HYPSM, that is, purely through the performance in school?

No such route exists. Sorry.

>Schools are emphasizing essays more and more.
If you have years to make one great essay, it shouldn't be that difficult.

> They want students with a certain personality and flair.
So what would be the best college that he would be accepted into with this resume?

>He will always have a goal in mind.
I think a huge part of humanity is to be uselessly idle some of the time and not have immediate goals some of the time. To not know where you are headed in life, and idly deciding, is an important aspect of learning how to be a happy contributing member of society.

>Potentially they could be much happier by not going to such a demanding school and getting a middle-of-the-road job.
I think it would usually be in the interest of the child for the caretaker to act under the assumption that he has more potential than he actually has then less, and I think this lax style of child rearing that has become popular which is that whatever potential the child has will be maximized merely by their efforts alone is more likely to make them regret the amount of time they wasted, as they can't be expected to see the important of diligence in their early years.

There is no such thing as a "best" college.

However there is a best college for every person, entirely subjective and nothing to do with prestige.

>I think that getting into HYPSM will do absolutely nothing for their happiness
It's one for me to assume that my child requires HYPSM for them to maximize their happiness, but it's it presumptuous for you to say that getting into HYPSM would do nothing for their happiness?

Then to what tier of universities would this route land him in, assuming he accomplishes what I set out for him in this plan?

>I think a huge part of humanity is to be uselessly idle some of the time and not have immediate goals some of the time.
The lesser part and often far too "huge", no doubt.

>To not know where you are headed in life, and idly deciding, is an important aspect of learning how to be a happy contributing member of society.
I think this is far too excessive for most American children, and fails to teach them the important of diligence, differed enjoyment, and self-control.

Let me then replace "best" with most prestigious. I'm not equating the two, but want to get a sense of what are the requirements for the tiers of universities.

There is no evidence that a school choice and happiness are in any way correlated, let alone causal. I dont understand where your assumption comes from. I would rather not make assumptions on a absence of evidence and rather focus on methods which have been correlated to increase happiness.

And yeah, it is totally an opinion because there isnt much if any research in this very nuanced venue to pursue happiness.

Again i think we are more on the same page than we realize. I was simply worried by what you said about never being idle. There is definitely a balance and the large majority, i agree, should not be idleness.

>I think it would usually
Again we are on the same page, there is a balance. Just dont live vicariously though your child.

Obviously, I think we can assume that parents that permit truancy in their child are usually damaging their chances at happiness than those who force their children to go to school. The method I'm proposing isn't radical, and I think of it as making their education as broad, yet as efficient as possible, with the desire that they go to the university that gives them the most opportunities in the future, which would probably be a top-tier university. Where have I gone wrong in my conclusions?

I would like to have the most useful sort of education, and I think this most useful is the one that best prepares them for the best universities for their future career, not only being qualified for the workload, but actually being accepted into it.

Will it make them more successful and provide for them in the long term? Yes

Are they more likely to be emotionally and financially stable? Absolutely.

I just dont understand how any of this has to do with happiness, when no such evidence exists.

I sincerely think children need to be educated, 100%. I also think most should go to four year schools. But, again, i dont see how going to school has anything to do with happiness. There are phd canidates who are suicidal and children in africa who have never had education or a job who are happy.

tl;dr success/education/intelligence =/= happiness

That does make sense. I agree with this conclusion. I was trying to point out some more nuanced elements that will play a role in them being successful in life. I dont think success impacts happiness but i know happiness impacts success.

>I just dont understand how any of this has to do with happiness, when no such evidence exists.
I don't see how any other object in the education of the child would be more likely to give them happiness. Some children are practically born to success, but that wouldn't be the case for my child because of my circumstances.

You agree with my premises, but not my conclusion. I think the most efficient sort of academic success for colleges is ACT and SAT scores, followed by AP test scores, in regards to admission into colleges. With this in mind, how is it not a valid conclusion to have the child first-and-foremost, (in regards to academics), do as well as possible in these tests?

Mhmm precisely my point. Education/success has little to do with happiness. But success will be hugely impacted by happiness, again which needs to come from non-educational means.

Full circle i mean to say that your child being happy and successful will not be dependent on their education as much as it will be other factors. Education is not the end all be all for fulfillment, and neither are HYPSM.

You misunderstand me. When you talk about the conclusion of purely testing well, i agree. There are some nuances of emotional intelligence which i discussed as being immensely important to being admitted, but on purely intelligence i agree with your methods. Just keep in mind this is about half of what is required to be admitted.

And when you conflate getting into a good school with happiness or success, that is where i disagree.

To sum it up, i think that scholastics alone are definitely not enough to get you into a prestigious school nor make you happy or successful in life.

Kek, OP basically admits he is the child

>Just keep in mind this is about half of what is required to be admitted.
There's nothing more that can be done from a scholastic perspective? Otherwise, what would be the straightest way with extracurricular activities or skills?

I'm really not, I just didn't want to get any more comments how I was abusing the child or trying to live vicariously through him.

Without context of what you described and how you'd implement it, that kind of assumption is easy to make.

However that is obviously not the case from talking to you.

No, there isnt. Colleges love good students, but more importantly they want adults(relatively speaking), emotionally and intellectually. Being a good student doesnt pay anything and will not support you, nor will it add to the school's endowment. So it is important that an individual can transition from school to work in a healthy, practical and fast way. That is where emotional intelligence comes in.

>straightest way with extracurricular activities
I dont know what you mean by straightest way. There is no set rule, procedure or distinct method for this. There are lots of materials on raising children out there. I am far from an expert.

>Colleges love good students, but more importantly they want adults(relatively speaking), emotionally and intellectually. Being a good student doesnt pay anything and will not support you, nor will it add to the school's endowment. So it is important that an individual can transition from school to work in a healthy, practical and fast way. That is where emotional intelligence comes in.
I assumed this would be good enough because this is far above the general scholastic success of most HYPSM attendees, if only because of the number of AP exams.

If you look at this cached page of a (soon-to-be) defunct website, you would see acceptances of applicants to Harvard that have much less stellar accomplishments.

>White female, suburban private school. 4.0 GPA (unweighted), 95th percentile SATs, three AP tests, two SAT IIs. Interested in community service, photography, travel. Excellent letters of recommendation from her teachers and pastor. Legacy, both parents.

>White male, urban private school. 4.8 GPA (weighted), 92nd percentile SATs, four AP tests, two SAT IIs. Interested in creative writing, entrepreneurship, community service. All-State Debate Society. Glowing letters from his choir director and the school principal.

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mbgOeIVzAAwJ:gawker.com/ivy-league-admissions-are-a-sham-confessions-of-a-harv-1690402410 &cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Okay. Don't forget about these parts:
>Interested in community service, photography, travel. Excellent letters of recommendation from her teachers and pastor. Legacy, both parents.
>Interested in creative writing, entrepreneurship, community service. All-State Debate Society. Glowing letters from his choir director and the school principal.

They want well-rounded students at the pinnacle of excellence. Replacing the above things with 15 extra AP tests isn't going to work.

That is the point i have been trying to make. Colleges do not choose individuals purely on scholastic achievements, i would argue this is half of their decision, which is why more well-rounded individuals get in rather than the scholastically superior.

Best way to ensure happiness is to let a kid be a kid. Support their interests and let them figure out their own lives. Pushing them into something you want and they don't just makes them resent you.

Yes i think this is nuance everyone in the thread keeps arguing with op about.

Okay, but it's unfortunate, because it's much more difficult to motivate the child to have notable extracurricular achievements than through scholastic achievements, if only because the route to the former is far more obvious and clear, and while they might be precocious enough in other areas, it might not have the focus and persistence necessary to appear in some way on a resume.

>Colleges do not choose individuals purely on scholastic achievements, i would argue this is half of their decision, which is why more well-rounded individuals get in rather than the scholastically superior.
With this in mind, what tier of colleges might accept him with such as resume as I mentioned. Surely, he could get into Brown or Cornell.

Elite universities are a meme. You go for the prestige associated with it, not the education you receive.

>Best way to ensure happiness is to let a kid be a kid.
This leads to many children feeling enmity towards their parents for not adequately preparing them to develop a better college resume, or to force them to learn diligence. The extreme of this is to impose no rules whatsoever and think any action the kid takes must either be in his interest, or a mistake from which he must naturally learn the consequence, often when it is too late to make up for it.

The basis of my dislike of idleness also stems from how I see people who have retired from their professions more miserable and anxious than ever, in which it will be found the employment guarantees happiness more than indolence.

I agree with this. It's better that the child has a sense of autonomy. There is no reason why you can't teach your child how to be a responsible adult, have self-discipline and reach high without forcing them to follow a strict path.

Professors at more prestigious universities are definitely more reliably good teachers compared to other universities.

First off the concept that there is a minimum guideline list of qualifications for each college is just plain wrong.

Second, elite universities are indeed a meme unless you are at the graduate level.

Third, you should not be putting sole focus on which university they get into because it will be a fraction of a percent of their emotional and intellectual outcome as an adult. And having an early expectation for a child to get into one of theses schools is not healthy for your kid.

I understand that you want the best opportunity/happiness for the child, but that will not be born out of focusing on prestigious colleges.

Focus more on the kid in the here and now and less on the future (but obviously dont ignore it entirely)

>It's better that the child has a sense of autonomy.
This generally is not accomplished merely by letting the child "be a kid," only that compelled drudgery replaces listless idleness.

Also, there is a level of autonomy that's being expected from the child in my plan, as they would be self-learning all their material from middle school.

Anecdotal evidence used in argumentation is a logical fallacy, plain and simple. Confirmation bias plays too heavily a role..

>First off the concept that there is a minimum guideline list of qualifications for each college is just plain wrong.
I don't think I was implying that. Wish much less, I could guarantee his acceptance in many if not most high-ranking schools. The question, (assuming it's not good enough for the absolutely highest tier of schools), is how far would this resume take him?

>elite universities are indeed a meme unless you are at the graduate level.
I've heard the communities there make it worth it.

> you should not be putting sole focus on which university they get into because it will be a fraction of a percent of their emotional and intellectual outcome as an adult.
As I said before, this is not meant to be all-inclusive, only in regards to education, and only in regards to improving chances at going to the best university for the child.

>but that will not be born out of focusing on prestigious colleges.
Suppose the kid came to me and said, "I want nothing more to get into these particular colleges and would like to know the surest path to getting there and preferably through scholastic achievement." and could not be persuaded to alter his goal. What would be the answer to him?

I see nothing more than anecdotal evidence here with the exception of what's generally expected favorable applicants to top tier universities.

expected from*

Why do you want your kid to be happy?

I actually didn't mention happiness until people said it wasn't equivalent to going to the most prestigious universities. If there were a dichotomy in those goals, I think it would be fairly easy for me to make the choice between them.

But other than that, I can't really answer the question.

Obviously he wont completely void of extra-curriculars or emotional intelligence, even if they are merely lacking.

But with your proposed question as just having scholastic intelligence and absolutely no emotional intelligence the answer is simple. He not get very far (not to be mean but honest). Yes he has a chance to get into prestigious schools but beyond that pure scholastiscism with zero emotional intelligence will get him barely anywhere in life.

>I've heard the communities there make it worth it.
Damn good point. This draws back to how emotional intelligence plays a role. If your child doesn't know how to socialize in the slightest then communities wont benefit him at all if he cant involve himself in them.

>As I said before
As i have said before, education, and getting into colleges is half social and half intellectual

>Suppose the kid came to me and said
Kiss them on the cheek and implement everything we have discussed. Try your best to get them involved socially. And if they are as inspired, committed, and hard working(the most important of the three) as you are to get into whichever school they choose, they stand a damn healthy chance of getting in.

What you have described is all he will need scholastically. But getting into a prestigious school is only half scholastic.

>This generally is not accomplished merely by letting the child "be a kid,"
I really should have said "I mostly agree with this." By all means, do discipline the child.

>Also, there is a level of autonomy that's being expected from the child in my plan, as they would be self-learning all their material from middle school.
This is not what I mean by autonomy. In this scenario, the child is self-learning to appease you and your plans for them, and not necessarily because they believe this is the right path for them. Like others have said, you child feeling forced to follow your master plan is a good way of straining your relationship with them and making them emotionally unstable. Now, I don't believe the child should make all the decisions themselves, and you should guide them on a path that will lead them to success, but I think your approach needs to be more nuanced than, say, locking them in their room and forcing them to study.

>completely void of extra-curriculars
I'm talking about what would appear on his resume. I'm saying that's his sum as a person, only the easier and surest way to get him accepted to anywhere he wanted to go, (or what place would be best for him). I would naturally be interested in his well-being, which would almost certainly consist in giving him the opportunity for him to go to any university that he wanted, (or what would be best for him), so HYPSM would be the standard because they have the highest requirements of any university, (with the exception of a handful of specialized schools).

>no emotional intelligence the answer is simple
You keep mentioning the emotional intelligence. This would come from being able to self-teach every subject and self-discipline himself, which is the most essential part of emotional intelligence, (at least what is most critically lacking in most students and possibly most humans).

> beyond that pure scholastiscism with zero emotional intelligence will get him barely anywhere in life.
I would expect him to find and develop his true passion in college.

>If your child doesn't know how to socialize in the slightest then communities
I guess I would find ways to get him into communities outside of schools. I'm sure other homeschooling parents have found solutions to this.

>getting into colleges is half social and half intellectual
I'm not sure you said this. This is different from saying half of it is pure scholastic achievement and the other half is pure scholastic achievement. I would understand you saying half of being successful in life is emotion and logical intelligence, but this is different from what colleges would accept a kid who only has scholastic achievements.

>implement everything we have discussed
It's one thing to say get fives on all these AP tests and score within the 99th percentile of ACT and SAT test takers, and another to say develop extraciricular passions from which you can achieve things that make your resume more compelling, which is far more ambiguous.

> they stand a damn healthy chance of getting in.
It makes also makes it more difficult for the parent to help them. If they're getting poor grades or not doing well on practice exams, you have an objective measure of their progress, while would be much less apparent if they can't develop extracurricular achievements, which might be due to various factors that impede success.

>You keep mentioning the emotional intelligence.
This is not what i meant by social/emotional intelligence. It is the capacity for being aware of ones emotions, other people's emotions, empathy, street smarts, etc. What you described as emotional intelligence i would categorize under scholastic intelligence, for lack of a better phrase. I know i am not entirely clear.

>I guess I would find ways to get him into communities
Absolutely and there are resources out there for children in the general area and even for home schooled kids specifically.

>I'm not sure you said this.
I am totally playing devils advocate here. Yes that is my philosophy for life, but i agree it probably isnt half and half for admittance. however i played devils advocate to argue that emotional intelligence does play a large role than you "seem" to admit, not majority or 50/50, but certainly a big piece of the pie so to say when applying for college.

>you child feeling forced to follow your master plan is a good way of straining your relationship with them and making them emotionally unstable.
I'm not asking much more from them than what many Asian Americans require from their children, (though I think I'm being more efficient), and I think in those cases, even if the child learns to resent his parents, (which I think is rare), he eventually learns they were acting with his interests at heart and he could not certainly say he would be better off if they were more lax.

>you should guide them on a path that will lead them to success
The problem is that I don't think children have the ability to be autonomous in regards to planning for their future or the self-motivation to strike towards necessary goals, or at least generally can't be expected to have these attributes, which is why discipline from the wiser parents is necessary at all.

>locking them in their room and forcing them to study.
This wouldn't necessarily be the means, but certain levels of performance would be expected, then demanded, and if it's clear it's lack of diligence from the child that prevents success, we shall see whose will shall be done in the end.

>It makes also makes it more difficult for the parent to help them.

Yeah, developing emotional intelligence from a scientific standpoint is a very soft science. It is tough to figure out and not absolute. I think this is where the main disagreement in the thread comes from.

>but certain levels of performance would be expected, then demanded

Not to get into the whole nature vs nurture debate but these kind of expectations particular in an incapable child are exactly why people are arguing against you in this thread.

>(which I think is rare)
Again you should not create your parenting style about what you think, but rather what is generally true.

>It is the capacity for being aware of ones emotions, other people's emotions, empathy, street smarts, etc
I don't think I would raise a someone without empathy. That's entirely different from what curriculum or standards I impose. I didn't say I would lock him in his room or prevent him from having friends, only that he wouldn't attend school and I would expect fives and high ACT and SAT scores. You or someone mentioned that homeschooling debilitates the ability to socialize in the kid, but I'm sure this problem has been solved before.

>intelligence does play a large role than you "seem" to admit, not majority or 50/50, but certainly a big piece of the pie so to say when applying for college
The emotional intelligence required is perhaps being able to make an heart-felt essay or come across in an interview as genuine, but even these can be faked if necessary. Speaking about the other aspects of the child, I'm not that concerned. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways he can develop the intuitive ability to emphasize independent of attending an outside school. I have Asperger syndrome, and if the child in question doesn't, he'll probably have a much better ability to emphasize than I ever could, regardless of what I do for his opportunities to socialize.

I wish I had parent like that instead of listening to
>there is no job
>you have to work hard (as exhausting manual labour)
>no matter what school you will finish only thing that matter is connections

etc

It isn't a question of how they much they develop emotional intelligence as how they discover what passions they have that would allow them to obtain true, extracurricular achievements that they could pad their resume with that would be the other half of their efforts to get into the college of their choice, in addition to the purely scholastic means. For the vast majority of high school students, they don't know what their real passions are, much less which they can turn into a career. It's unfortunate that there's little can be done for those with true potential, self-control, and diligence, but can't put anything on their resume except scholastic achievements which will always help. You can always tell your kids, "Get better grades and ACT and SAT scores," because that always helps because this is a good determinant for success in college classes, (which admissions directors have admitted), but it's more difficult to say, "Take up a medley of extracurricular activities like sports and debate to give the impression you have a balanced life, and find some passion you can turn into real achievements," because the former seems like a waste of time, and the latter has no clear direction.

From going back and forth i sincerely doubt you would trap your kid in a room or raise them without empathy. You definitely sound like you are self-aware and have the best interests for the child.

>The emotional intelligence required is perhaps being able
I think that the most important emotional intelligence trait is being able to convey complex ideas in a simple way. I agree a heartfelt essay is easy to fake, and could get one into prestigious schools. That is where i draw the line between being able to get into a school and being successful/happy in life (again which i unnecessarily distracted you with as nothing about happiness is in your original post). A fake essay will get one into college, but it will do nothing to help one succeed in life or in college.

The whole point is that you shouldnt be feigning a balanced life. Colleges look for individuals who have legitimate balanced lives, because that is an indication of being successful at the bachelor level.

>Not to get into the whole nature vs nurture
As for nature, I'm not asking much more than what most Asian American parents ask their children, and assuming Asians as a race aren't inherently more capable for academic success, we are on an even playing field.

As for nurture, if the kid were bringing home Fs and this was clearly due to lack of effort, any responsible parent would take action to rectify this in the interest of the child's future.

>rather what is generally true.
I think it's generally true that most children brought up in this do not resent their parents, at least if they constantly show their children love and don't make it apparent that their love is dependent on their success.

If emotional intelligence is faked, then yes you might get in, but you'll struggle to perform.

>I think it's generally true
Again this nuanced idea of how you implement it.

And of course Fs are a sign of something bigger being wrong. But what if a child brings home an B- on something you watched them diligently study for?

>A fake essay will get one into college, but it will do nothing to help one succeed in life or in college.
I have no idea whether this should be necessary or not, but it shouldn't be that difficult for the child to develop a genuine reason to attend a particular college, (or set of colleges), by the time an essay should be started.

Then I'll basically find ways for him to give the impression of balanced life. If the kid spent the rest of his time playing video games, watching movies, going out with friends, etc. this in effect is a balanced life and I wouldn't mind them for the purposes of this discussion, but it's not something you can put on a resume.

One of the compelling aspects of this plan is that it cuts through the harrowing difficult on the part of admissions officers of trying to haphazardly compare the the numerous incomparable elements of resumes, comparing a sport to a music career, short stories to scientific papers, programming languages to foreign langues, etc. and just gives AP scores and SAT scores, which they have admitted are the best indications of success academically.

>but you'll struggle to perform.
This is what I continue to fail to understand. The most importance skill is diligence and ability to defer happiness, which is what my plan ensures. What struggling will occur here? Will the classes be simply too hard?

This goes back to getting in vs being successful.

Those things you described will not get help them get in as they cant be put on a resume, but it will help them cope and succeed in the environment 100%. Also that isnt wholly what i meant about balanced.

Ultimately the problem is that you seem determined to get into a prestigious college which is understandable but not in a practical sense.

>ability to defer happiness
I sincerely disagree with this. Being happy will hugely increase performance while being unhappy will hugely decrease performance. And there is a lot of science which points to this.

>But what if a child brings home an B- on something you watched them diligently study for?
Then I would review the test to see if it's an objective examination of the material. If so, and the test is fair, then he should simply study more or more effectively. If the test requires a verbatim memorization of a text or definition of terms, he should be able to recite or write it out perfectly, which can be done by rote. If he had to solve math problems, the sort of which are already available in a textbook, then he should be able to solve as many variation of those problems as he can.

There are examinations that are perhaps too difficult for a child, but unless he's of substandard intelligence, almost any difficulty can be surmounted through diligence.

>Also that isnt wholly what i meant about balanced.
The truth is that this search for balance is the primary reason so many complain that the college admissions process for these universities are a crapshoot. This is why I can't help but admire the ruthless objectivity of the Gaokao, in which there is one metric which is the same for every student.

> Also that isnt wholly what i meant about balanced.
And what is that?

>being successful.
Why wouldn't they be successful?

Good i am glad you hear you also would do you due diligence before deciding on a judgement.

But what i dont agree with is this binary defintion of intelligence. Either the kid can do it or can not. When in reality intelligence is a spectrum. It is entirely possible for a child to get a B- without being of "substandard intelligence".

I mean that when one is presented between the choice of a pressing opportunity to be productive and an uncritical opportunity for enjoyment, they will always chose the former, at least when it is in their ultimate interest, (or long-term happiness).

>It is entirely possible for a child to get a B- without being of "substandard intelligence".
I said almost. I am speaking generally. I said if the test is objective, and even when it is not, more studying can make up for this usually. I can't say categorically that either the child isn't diligent or smart enough, but considering how easy most tests are when approached rightly and with enough focus, the caretaker should first suspect the child isn't trying hard enough or is usually using an inefficient means of studying.

Meaning they will choose productivity over enjoyment? (former over latter)

Assuming long-term happiness is the former.

Yes, that's what I mean by the ability to deffer happiness. Perhaps a better term would be differed enjoyment because the latter gives a better impression of how temporary it is.

I see now where we are missing each other. Quite frankly, there needs to be an /edu/ board. Veeky Forums is mostly filled with STEM undergrads and grads heading out of college.

I am arguing what practically makes you successful and happy in the sci/math field as an adult long term, ie preparing you for what that is like. And it is so more unbelievably broad than simply getting into an undergrad program. Hence the need for /edu/ since it primarily falls in that category (teaching, education, child development).

You are arguing/inquiring/asking about what the base minimums are for getting into the top grad programs. (All of which i think we have fleshed out well as to how and what we agree on)

Correct me if im wrong.

>Yes, that's what I mean by the ability to deffer happiness.

I do not think it is inherit in people, and im not entirely sure you meant that. However i do i agree it is a necessary and valuable trait to have. How to teach it effectively though is mind boggling.

>when one is presented between the choice of a pressing opportunity to be productive and an uncritical opportunity for enjoyment, they will always chose the former, at least when it is in their ultimate interest, (or long-term happiness)
I disagree that this would happen, especially for a child. Procrastination can be a powerful force.

You should read what Richard Feynman's father was like.

He fostered interest without shoving shit down his kid's throat. I recommend the same approach.