Korolev said:
Luckily, my goals aligned with my parents goals (they didn't brain-wash me, I came to appreciate science on its own). For my brother... well, unfortunately he was of a different mind-set and suffered a lot of stress under my mother's strict parenting style.
You made some good points, and technically, I agree that parents should push their children into things they might not like, at least to give children the possibility to test out all possibilities (you can't know if you'd be good at sports/science/art if you never tried it). However, this paragraph I quoted points to something else. I assume, as you said it, that your mother raised (or tried to raise) both you and your brother the same way. But it only worked on you. So, was it really your mother's strict parenting that made you the way you are, or were you just like that on your own? Because, if it was your mother's parenting, why didn't it work on your brother? I have a similar situation at home; my parents were not strict and it worked well on me. I had choices and I understood them, so I chose to do what I was good at and I decided my career very early in my childhood, while my brother took this as an opportunity to do nothing. The same thing with you, apparently; you responded well to strict parenting because it suited you, but your brother didn't because it didn't suit him. So, should parents impose strictness on all children, despite their different personalities and needs, or should they model the parenting according to the kids' needs? I think parents should get to know their children and then raise them according to their needs. Strict parenting for you, a bit less stressful parenting for your brother (and the opposite in my case; relaxed parenting for me and strict parenting for my brother). Despite being siblings, kids are rarely the same in their needs. There are kids who demand pressure and stress and there are kids who lead miserable lives because of it. One of my friends was the type of a person who just needed to attend every school and out of school activity. During high-school, he attended
two high-schools (ordinary and musical) and passed them both with As. He needed that and it worked well for him (and his older sister). If my mother tried to impose that to me, I would have ended with a nervous breakdown at the age 15, just like the poor child from the OP's post. I was not that type of a person and I never will be. I am more static, focused on a single (and one or two more) subject and I study it to death. Now, I'm sure I would have been great if my mother forced me to get piano lessons (I have a good ear for music), but I simply do not have the need to do it. It would distract me from other things that I enjoyed doing and ultimately, would serve no purpose (besides giving my mother something to brag about).
So, to conclude, I believe that some children need to be pushed into everything, and I also believe some kids should not. If your child goes to his uncle, crying and shaking and obviously having a breakdown, then the parent will have to ease with the activities and first attend to his/her kid's health and well-being. Maybe, they'll have to live with the fact that their child is not a jack of all trades and that he/she is not the wunderkind they hoped for. A lot of times I've witnessed parents who failed something in their youth and now push their kids into those activities because they regret for what they missed. Those parents need to stop living through their kids and let their kids live their own lives. However, as I said, some kids need a push, some even want it themselves. Parents should be able to see that and model their parenting according to the needs of their children. It's wonderful to see that a child responds well to stress and excels in everything, without suffering from medical problems related to nerves and stress. But it's sad to see kids living miserably because their parents can't understand that some things simply aren't for them. I'd like my kids (someday) to be intelligent wunderkinds, but if they end up not being that, I'll certainly not force them to be something they are not. That's counter-productive, for me and them.
So, to answer the OP, I believe your sister needs to think her priorities through and decide whether she wants her kid to be the best in everything regardless of the child's needs, interest and, most importantly, health or she'll loosen up a bit and let the child have some time to breathe.
Korolev said:
I had to the take the so-called "Suicide Six" subjects in High-school (Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Maths B (intermediate maths) and Maths C (advanced maths) plus the compulsory English).
I just wanted to address this because it's very interesting how education differs from country to country. In my country (Croatia), we have a lot of types of high schools, with the "standard type" being the gymnasium. Most kids go there, on average. In it, we have between 15 and 17 subject per year (depending on the year; the third I think is the most crowded), all compulsory for everyone. Subjects are: Croatian language and literature, English language and literature, Italian/German language and literature, Latin (first two years), Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology (second and third year), Sociology (third year), History, Art History, Geography, Philosophy (fourth year), Ethics/Religious class, Politics (fourth year), Gym, Music History, Computer Sciences (first year) and one facultative subject that we choose among ourselves and all class has to attend (we first had Computer Sciences and last three years we chose English. For three years, we had 5 hours of English per week, while we only had 4 hours of Croatian. It was great because we had a great professor and we all learned English well). All of those subjects are compulsory for all, no one gets to choose which ones to attend (besides choosing Ethics or Religious class, but one or the other is compulsory. And you get either Italian or German depending on which class you get into (I got Italian)). Also, we have a variant of Language gymnasium where they lose Physics and Chemistry after first or second year (I'm not sure) and get one more language (French usually) and a few more hours for other languages and we also have a Math gymnasium variant where they learn more Maths and Physics and lose some hours from language classes. There's also a Classical gymnasium where they have four years of Latin AND Greek, along with all else. Granted, some of those are easy (Art, Music, Ethics, Computer Sciences for most of us), but combining everything else and it's not easy. Difference between us being that we all have go through the "Suicide six". It's a standard. And it's not just six. I just wanted to give perspective (and we'd love to have your system and be able to choose classes).