Well rounded kids?

[Donna]

I was thinking about this when I couldn't sleep in the wee hours of the morning and wondered what other people's thoughts are.

Do you think it is important for your child to be well-rounded? What does it mean to you?

Do you think kids who are excellant (not talking just good or great in their local community but higher level) in their field of interest need to be well-rounded...does a child who is prodigious in math need to have other interests or does a top gymnast need to do other activities to make herself more well-rounded? Is there a point a child can reach or an amount of talent in a certain field or activity where well-rounded is no longer important since certainly working toward high skill levels in most fields involves many hours of study or practice limiting time for other activities?

If your child had an extreme interest or ability in something would your values encourage the child to excel in that field or would you encourage balancing interests?

I recently read the book "The Overachievers" and it seemed that most of those kids forced themselves into huge numbers of activities whether or not they even had any interest in them just to make their resumes look good. I know when I was in high school, I had multiple interests like sports, music, student government, etc... and was a "well rounded kid." I was good at everything I did but not outstanding at anything.

I have been struggling with this and am trying to figure out where I stand on these types of questions.

[LisaDSB]

I struggle with this too. I'm reading the Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell, and he talks about the 10,000 hour rule. It takes that long to be an 'expert' in anything, regardless of one's inherent talents.

If you've got a child who is aspiring to greatness in a particular field, it would seem that a great deal of time would need to be devoted to that field, and that would likely be at the expense of 'well-roundedness'.

[AnitaMcC]

Do you think it is important for your child to be well-rounded? What does it mean to you?

Do you think kids who are excellant (not talking just good or great in their local community but higher level) in their field of interest need to be well-rounded...does a child who is prodigious in math need to have other interests or does a top gymnast need to do other activities to make herself more well-rounded? Is there a point a child can reach or an amount of talent in a certain field or activity where well-rounded is no longer important since certainly working toward high skill levels in most fields involves many hours of study or practice limiting time for other activities?

If your child had an extreme interest or ability in something would your values encourage the child to excel in that field or would you encourage balancing interests?


This is something we are trying balance between being well rounded and not overwelmed or frustrated by being forced to do things that they really don't have an interest in or is too much.

So one of the things we do is give the kids limits. Meaning... we require them to do one sport activity, one academic extracurricular activity, one community activity. But what they pick is mostly their choice (within reason and within mom/dad ability to accomplish fitting these into family schedules). These are not set in stone as some activities may require more time and make it very difficult to accomplish more, and it also depends on child's age.

Ds 9th grade does Kung Fu, bowling league, Civil Air Patrol, Religious Education/Confirmation class.

Dd 9th grade does Kung Fu/competition team, Civil Air Patrol, Religious Education/Confirmation class, private music lessons.

Ds 5th grade does Kung Fu, bowling league, Cub Scouts, Home study Religious Education, and and after school sport club that is an hour after school on Wednesdays.

Ds 3rd grade does Kung Fu, bowling league, Cub Scouts, Home study RE and Einstein Club (plays games like chess, mancala, checkers, battle ship, etc) for 75 minutes after school on Wednesdays.

These are their "extracurricular activities".

For their education.. I try to balance between core requirements and interests. If I can accomplish their core requirements by using their interests then that is what I do. For example... Ds is big on science but hates writing. So I try to allow most of his writing assignments be related to his interests. Occassionally I assign writing assignments that aren't in his interest areas because he needs to be able to write even about things that he isn't interested about and with his Asperger Syndrome he needs the "brain exercises" to stretch beyond his comfort zone (wow that is poorly written-LOL). Also one thing we will do is be flexible on requirements for high school diploma. For Dd we may only require her to do 3 yrs of math and 3 yrs of science so she can up her electives to do more in her music and other interests. For Ds we may decrease the requirements of foreign langauge to accommodate his interests/need for high level and wide interest in sciences. IMO, there is no reason why they have to learn a foreign language.. they can do very well in the world speaking only one language. I did study two years of German in high school and two semesters of Spanish in college. In my life... I have no need to know more than English. But I enjoyed learning a bit of other langauges.

But at the same time we try to have our kids dabble in many areas so they can find what interests them or what they may hate... especially since our kids prefer to avoid what is unknown to them. They think they won't like something even before they try it. So we force them to try different things.

[patchfire]

I believe that my kids should be adequate well-rounded academically; that is, even if they have a gift in a particular area or more than one particular area, there is a certain "floor" of knowledge that I believe they should attain.

I also believe that each of them should have a physical activity that they enjoy and can sustain throughout their lives. For dd, that's swimming. She's never going to be a top swimmer, but she enjoys it, she can utilize it on a team, and she can do it solo. I'm extremely pleased with that. I don't know yet what it will be for the other two.

I additionally think that kids should have at least one creative outlet. Not necessarily to excel at it, but to enjoy it and be able to turn to it throughout life. For example, my dad is an artist. It's not his job or career, but he can turn to drawing or painting any time. My daughter takes after me, though, and is decidedly not a visual artist. :) Her creative outlet is music.

Do I think kids should be well-rounded in the stereotypical college application sense? No. But I think they should be able to speak well, enjoy a sport or exercise, find pleasure in something creative, and have a basic literacy in all subject areas, whatever their specific gifts.

[Donna]

I struggle with this too. I'm reading the Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell, and he talks about the 10,000 hour rule. It takes that long to be an 'expert' in anything, regardless of one's inherent talents.

If you've got a child who is aspiring to greatness in a particular field, it would seem that a great deal of time would need to be devoted to that field, and that would likely be at the expense of 'well-roundedness'.


I have read this book as well and the reasoning in it resonated with me. That book was one of the first that got me to thinking and struggling with these sorts of questions.

[mominsac]

This is an interesting question, and a loaded question...so dependent on the family/personal values, life outlook and goals. It's also dependent on the kids themselves, their age and their level of interests/passions. In general, balance in life is always good. But, are we talking about being "well-rounded" so it looks good on a college resume? (in reference to the book "Overachiever") Or are we talking about helping a child become a happy, fulfilled adult, who understands himself, his/her passions and lives life to its fullest?

This is my opinion, but, if the child is younger then 11 or 12, as a parent, I would like to expose my child to as many different types of activities as financially and emotionally feasible. This is whether I have a little genius on my hands or not, because for a young child, it will be up to the parents to "show them the world" and let them explore variety of things whether it be athletics, music, high math, art etc. At these younger ages, it is not like they need to spend "hours" on end perfecting their crafts or passions. I personally would not want a little genius who is so focused on only one thing at such an early age. Besides, for most kids, learning to enjoy and work hard at different things -- athletics, music etc -- helps them learn about different aspects of themselves, explore the world around them, and helps them develop overall confidence, goal-setting and work-ethics skills.

Starting around 11 or 12 (and these ages are somewhat arbitrary, they can be 10, or 13...), it would seem to me that kids need more time to hone their chosen interests and really develop their talent, at the detriment of being "well-rounded". And maybe, that's perfectly ok and needed. It depends on the longer term goals and interests. I would probably encourage my child to strive to do at least one thing "with real excellence", but that is just me and my values -- I do think there is something to be learned by setting high goals for oneself and learning to achieve those goals. This may mean you have to drop some things and may also mean you get more focused. If you have a god-given talent, by all means develop it.

Some other parents may not agree with my philosophy, however. To some, life is not about specializing and becoming super-successful in something, but about "experiencing life", being recreationally well-rounded and being happy.

In the end, I couldn't say which way is "right" or "better".

[LisaDSB]

I'm still mulling over where I stand, based on what I've been reading and thinking about too, but here's where I'm at at the mo...

I think it's up to us parents to expose our kids to lots of things, academically and otherwise, when they are young (and academically, I think this has to continue beyond early childhood, although I would allow for greater time to be spent focusing on their particular passions).

If they develop a talent, and have a passion for it, I think parents need to help them learn the discipline to work at it, since that seems to be an essential ingredient to success. They need to be allowed the opportunity to put in those 10,000 hours (and they may need the odd push to stay focused).

If they don't really shine in a particular area, then being well-rounded is the next best thing.

(When I say talent, by the way, I mean an objectively identifiable one. This is a bit of an aside, but I'm astounded by the number of people who audition for American Idol and who profess to be aspiring singers who are just in need of a break. They've had lessons and obviously people have told them they're good, but anyone listening objectively can clearly see that they need a dump truck to carry their tune. Somehow, they have been misled and have misled themselves into believing they have talent. Sounds cruel, but we need to be honest with our kids because Simon Cowell, or someone like him, will be brutally honest down the line.)

[Kalah]

I want my children to have a wide base of general knowledge. I'm starting with the gaps that I've found in my own education-history and mythology are the biggies. I want my boys to understand that although they prefer science and math and may eventually choose a career in those areas, I want them to know how to carry on a conversation with others on many topics-from modern ideas, news and popular culture to history and literature. That's well rounded for me as far as academics are concerned.

My oldest worries me as far as having a well rounded life. He's funny and witty and a great kid to be around. But, he's quirky. He can be obsessive and single minded. He's only 9 and his life isn't set in stone. I worry though that he won't be able to have a full life, that his will be a tunnel instead of an open world. My youngest is more of a go with the flow kind of kid.

We make sure they have a variety of experiences. As a family we hike and explore a lot. We play games and visit a lot. They take tae kwon do regularly and pick a team sport to try a couple of times a year or just stick with soccer.

A thought on specializing on an area of talent--At TKD there was a very talented 17 yo girl. She's competed all over the world and has done well. But she's given up going out with friends, the arts school she was attending, and having a life outside of martial arts. Recently she decided she wanted a boyfriend and wanted to go to college. She was burned out and injuries plagued her. Her instructor felt betrayed and angry because he'd invested so much time and energy into making her great. She couldn't take the pressure anymore and left the school. It's very sad. My boys miss her and I think if she'd found a balance in life and been more "well-rounded" the situation may not have ended so badly. I think of her often and wonder how many other kids are experiencing the pressures of accelling beyond what they are able to emotionally handle. Just a thought.

Anyway, that's my 2 pennies on the subject. It's so hard to know what the right thing is. I'm trying to figure it out day by day.

[AnitaMcC]

In the end, I couldn't say which way is "right" or "better".

IMO, neither is "right" or "better". It is called individuality.

I like to expose my kids to many things, but I can't expose them to every thing. So I want them to learn to explore and not be afraid of giving something a try. I do not want them to say they hate something if they never tried it. One thing that drives me bonkers is when someone says they hate something when they never experienced it.

I want our kids to know who they are and to be able to choose not to do/learn things because they know it isn't their thing (but they need to know something about it to make that choice).

I tell my kids that if they say they hate something they had better have tried it before making that statement. They are learning to say they don't have an interest in trying/doing "such and such" at this time -LOL.

And when they find something they enjoy and want to specialize in that... then that is what they spend the majority of their free time doing. Dd is big into Kung Fu... she competes, so that is where she spends much of her free time. She also wants to be a professional musician... so she spends a lot of time in that. Ds#1 is big in sciences, so he spends a lot of time experimenting in a variety of stuff (I just tell him no blowing up the house or his room-LOL). But he can not spend all his time doing only what he "loves". He won't know if he likes anything else without getting out of the "box" once in awhile. I also try to make sure they are not pressured or over burdened to continue with an activity if they loose interest. If Dd decides she does not want to compete in martial arts anymore... then she wont. She is limited to how many hours she spends at the kung fu school. We also make her "take a vacation" from it (only a week) occassionally.

[joannqn]

I don't force anything on my kids at this point, nor do I have the resources for lots of extra-curricular activities. I focus on making sure they have the academics I feel are necessary, and add in interests as I can.

I let each child choose one regular activity. My son chooses to put in a lot of time in taekwondo. Because he has shown a lot of dedication, we've agreed to get him there five days a week. We limit the number of tournaments he can participate in each year, and we won't let him join the demo team because it would hurt the whole family. My daughter has finally found a love in a computer club so we make sure she gets to that. It's once a week. They just started a new class that is right after the one she's been doing so she goes for about four hours every Monday. We also let her attend 4 extra 5-6 hour days over the winter break.

Honestly, I feel that limiting activities makes a person more "well-rounded" because they aren't stressed out with packed schedules. By having a less packed schedule, they are healthier and can do better on what they choose to do with their time.

I'm not sure what we will do for high school when extra-curriculars are more important for the transcript. However, I do feel my son's long term dedication would be looked at as a positive. I just don't know if there will be enough time left over for community service and work experience. In the end, I think I'd land on the side of less is more...I'd rather not send my kids out in the world thinking that having every minute of the day scheduled is how you are suppose to live. That only leads to depression, stress, relationship problems, etc.

[mominsac]

IMO, neither is "right" or "better". It is called individuality.

Exactly my point!:001_smile:

[LibrarianMom]

I'm so glad to see this thread as just this evening I was ruminating on this very question. My children are still little, and I'm trying to decide if I should have them focus on one thing or take these early years to dabble a bit before picking their specialty. Right now I'm leaning toward dabbling as I want them to experience a variety of activities and outlets. I haven't read through the previous posts carefully, but I'm going to add the various books mentioned here to my reading list and check back for more responses later.

[KAR120C]

I think everyone needs a skill that can be relied upon to make a living (even a small living) -- and bonus points if it's inherently useful to him at home, even without the income potential. That would be a practical skill. And I think I'll steal patchfire's word "outlet" for artistic and athletic pursuits that one does because one loves them so well... something more intense than a hobby, but not necessarily something that would be reliable for income. And I'd add to it that everyone should have some intellectual interest. Something that just fascinates them even though there's just no way you'd ever be hired as a Great-Dismal-Swamp-History-Expert. (LOL) And I think everyone should have a second language, however rusty -- at least enough to travel.

In a perfect situation, I think one should have more than one of each of those. And you're also going to need at least minimal skills in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and a basic grasp of the laws of the land, because even professional athletes need to be able to tell if their accountant is cheating them.

Beyond that, if DS wants to spend twice as much time on math and science as he does on anything else, I'm fine with that. If he were as obsessed with something less practical I'd be more inclined to make him expand his horizons... But math and science make a fairly good living, he has artistic and athletic outlets and he's starting on some purely intellectual interests. I am insisting on keeping some options open within math and science. He thinks he wants to go into engineering, and he might be right, but he's too young to focus on that to the exclusion of all else. He doesn't have to simultaneously prepare to be a linguist or anything, but I think it's fair to keep finance, pure math, statistics, computer programming, and the major sciences (biology/ chemistry/ physics) on the table. For now at least.

[zaichiki]

Both of my older children have extreme interest in an area where they also excel. I'm not sure I would say that they excel to such a point that I'd want them to focus on only that area. They're not prodigies. If they were I might feel differently.

For these (my) kids, I think it's really important to be well-rounded. But I think they value that as well: they have a variety of other interests.

I was a kid who was a "jack of all trades but a master of none" too. When I was younger I did frequently wish my mother had given me the encouragement and support to really excel at *one* something (usually when I saw a child that was really amazing at something -- I think I was envious)... but now I see more value in trying out a bunch of new things and getting enjoyment from variety.

If, however, my *child* expressed an sincere desire to spend nearly all his/her energy on one area of excellence, I'd probably support that. I think some kids really *can* be driven toward their futures from a young age.

[zaichiki]

As I think more about this, I keep imagining how prodigies (specifically those who continue to excel in their field as adults) are raised. What about Yo-yo Ma? Tiger Woods? What about Kristi Yamaguchi or other serious ice skaters who still skate professionally today? It might be worth reading a few of their autobiographies to get an insight about how they feel regarding their childhoods. Were they encouraged to be well-rounded? Are they well-rounded people today?

Can a child prodigy who spends nearly all their time on one area become well-rounded later, as adults? I think they can -- if they want to be. I remember reading about Yo-yo Ma's childhood: he was very driven and spent nearly all of his time playing the cello. His parents valued that. As an adult, though, he has used his music as a springboard to other areas: history and cultural interests, community service, etc.

I'll keep reading this thread. The posts are very insightful. :)

[AnitaMcC]

If, however, my *child* expressed an sincere desire to spend nearly all his/her energy on one area of excellence, I'd probably support that. I think some kids really *can* be driven toward their futures from a young age.


Yep, this is our almost 15 yr old Ds. He has wanted to be an astrophysicist since he was 9yrs old. He hasn't waivered in this. But he Asperger Syndrome and ASers tend to hyper focus on a topic from a very young age.

[AnitaMcC]

As I think more about this, I keep imagining how prodigies (specifically those who continue to excel in their field as adults) are raised. What about Yo-yo Ma? Tiger Woods? What about Kristi Yamaguchi or other serious ice skaters who still skate professionally today? It might be worth reading a few of their autobiographies to get an insight about how they feel regarding their childhoods. Were they encouraged to be well-rounded? Are they well-rounded people today?

Can a child prodigy who spends nearly all their time on one area become well-rounded later, as adults? I think they can -- if they want to be. I remember reading about Yo-yo Ma's childhood: he was very driven and spent nearly all of his time playing the cello. His parents valued that. As an adult, though, he has used his music as a springboard to other areas: history and cultural interests, community service, etc.

I'll keep reading this thread. The posts are very insightful. :)


Great questions. I think I will have my kids read some of these autobiographies...

[mcconnellboys]

I think a lot of kids are trying to do what many colleges seemed to want for a while from prospective applicants and that's to have involvement in lots of extra-curriculars. I think for a while things were getting out of hand because everyone seemed to think more was better.

This past year or two, I've heard a lot of college admissions personnel telling us that they want to see more depth in fewer activities. Most now say that 3-4 things done on a more long term basis, and with more depth, are preferable to "many" activities.

My son has been very involved in music (primarily guitar now) for most of his school years. He's also been involved with theatre most of his life, and with swimming since he was 11. We got him involved in volunteer work in junior high school and the private school he attends now requires increasing hours each school year. That has been enough to get him accepted to every school he's applied to (thus far!)

We talk about "end points" of various activities often. For something like swimming, for instance, he might swim for his undergrad career (and probably will), but then what? He's not an olympic level swimmer and isn't really interested in working within that field as a coach, etc. in future. We're not sure why so many kids who aren't any faster than him are so hyper-intense about the sport. We like that he found it and made it his own. We like that he has a sport he can follow for his entire life. We like that he's gotten CPR/First Aid certification as part of lifeguard training (his first job, too). But I can't for the life of me understand some parents who seem so rabidly obsessed about a particular sport or playing of a musical instrument, etc. when their child has pretty much average skills. I'm not sure that they're not setting their children up for tremendous disappointment at some point in time and I wonder if it will make them bitter about the time invested in the activity, rather than looking back on it with fond memories....

So, I think it is important for kids to have some varied interests that they pursue in addition to just straight school studies. I think they need to experiment and try out different things until they find areas that they feel passionate about and then be allowed to participate in those areas as much as they can. Since I don't personally know any kids who are involved in something at a level that would provide them fame, riches, etc., I don't know that I can address how parents should approach handling the lives of such kids.

I know some kids who are in college at very young ages. Most of them have parents who encourage them to follow areas of interest about which they feel passionate. I know of a few cases in which the parents do not allow the kids to participate in the "fun", age appropriate things they should perhaps be participating in (and which the kids, themselves, seem to want to participate in). Are those kids being set up for problems down the road? I tend to think that they are, but what do I know......?

[zaichiki]

I know of a few cases in which the parents do not allow the kids to participate in the "fun", age appropriate things they should perhaps be participating in (and which the kids, themselves, seem to want to participate in). Are those kids being set up for problems down the road? I tend to think that they are, but what do I know......?

Regena,

What kinds of fun, age appropriate activities? (Just trying to get my sleep-deprived brain around this.) Wondering what reasons parents might have...

[AnitaMcC]

But I can't for the life of me understand some parents who seem so rabidly obsessed about a particular sport or playing of a musical instrument, etc. when their child has pretty much average skills. I'm not sure that they're not setting their children up for tremendous disappointment at some point in time and I wonder if it will make them bitter about the time invested in the activity, rather than looking back on it with fond memories....

So, I think it is important for kids to have some varied interests that they pursue in addition to just straight school studies. I think they need to experiment and try out different things until they find areas that they feel passionate about and then be allowed to participate in those areas as much as they can. Since I don't personally know any kids who are involved in something at a level that would provide them fame, riches, etc., I don't know that I can address how parents should approach handling the lives of such kids.

I know some kids who are in college at very young ages. Most of them have parents who encourage them to follow areas of interest about which they feel passionate. I know of a few cases in which the parents do not allow the kids to participate in the "fun", age appropriate things they should perhaps be participating in (and which the kids, themselves, seem to want to participate in). Are those kids being set up for problems down the road? I tend to think that they are, but what do I know......?

I feel similar... I especially don't understand how some parents can get so aggressive about their kids activities. Parents who hit a coach, parents who swear and act totally inappropriate regarding their kids activities. Then add in the child is average in that activity. I guess for some parents they live through their kids? Maybe the parents feel that they are only good parents if their children are famous or something.

Dd is talented at Kung Fu. She competes at tournaments, helps teach classes, etc. She has opportunities to go very far in the sport. She qualified to compete in Jr Olympics. But she opted not to go. It was her decision. Now this year, she feels she is ready and asked to compete at a qualifier end of Feb. She will only go as much as she wants. Her instructors feel that Dd can go all the way to make the Jr Olympic Team. Well... I don't know if that is so, but if Dd wants to give it a try then she can go for it.

But at the same time... we encourage her to do other things. We won't let her channel all her time and energy into Kung Fu. Thankfully she seems to be well rounded all on her own. She loves music and plays guitar and drums. She is currently learning piano. She also enjoys making videos and video editing.

The only issue we have with her is that some times she quits an activity before giving it time for her to truly learn enough about it to known if she will enjoy it or not and other times she rushes into making a commitment before really knowing what she was getting herself into. We figure she will learn and sometimes it will be the hard way-LOL.

Ds is very talented in math/science. He wants to be a astrophysicist and be a scientist. He does not want fame... he just wants to do science. He loves it. If we let him he would be immersed in technology and reading science all the time. So we have to bring him out of that box and get him to do other things. He does Kung Fu, but he isn't driven in it. He enjoys bowling and goes to tournaments. His drive is to get scholarships in bowling more than to do that activity for just enjoyment. But he isn't that good in bowling-LOL. We let him make the choice of how far he wants to go with it. He joined Civil Air Patrol and he enjoys it mostly. He wants to get his pilots license. He enjoys learning about aerospace and it is something that fits with his future goals. He does not want to join the military.

I guess our goal is to make sure our kids have several doors of opportunities open for them. We remind them that it isn't a good idea to put all their eggs in one basket. Dd does Kung Fu... what if she goes far and then has an career ending injury? Well she needs something to fall back on. Or what if she puts all her energy into it now... and then 5 years from now she looks back and says what the heck was she doing and miss out on so much other stuff?

[mcconnellboys]

Here's just one 'for instance'.

I know of a young girl who was finishing up her studies at UK last year in pre-med. She was in the prep class for the test to get into med school. (She was about 13, by the way.) She had taken classes first at a more small town community college and had to drop out of soccer when she came to UK because she had to have tutoring for her classes there, which didn't leave time for soccer. Then she was in a choir, but had to restrict her participation in that because of her test prep class schedule.

Okay? Do you see the problem I might have with this? She really *liked* soccer and her activities (sleepovers, etc.) with her choir mates. It might be different if she didn't really care about such things. She *wanted* to do those very age appropriate things. But she was steered into giving those up so she could keep performing along the timeline that others wanted for her. Would slowing down an entire year really have hurt anything? How about two years, even? (She had already done a summer of research at a major facility, by the way, and was going back for more this past summer. Full time work. Forty hours per week.)

Very accelerated kids still need to be kids, too, in my perhaps not so humble opinion.....

[Donna]

I feel similar... I especially don't understand how some parents can get so aggressive about their kids activities. Parents who hit a coach, parents who swear and act totally inappropriate regarding their kids activities. Then add in the child is average in that activity. I guess for some parents they live through their kids? Maybe the parents feel that they are only good parents if their children are famous or something.

Some parents definitely live through their children. I see it a lot with wrestling. Parents look at me like I have two heads because I do not allow my son to cut weight and don't yell at him (why yell, he can't hear me anyway while wrestling so when I coach him, I motion to him if he looks at me for help...which is rare.) He won a lot at 6-9yo then had a few rough years until this year but we never pushed him. Now he is working and winning because he is self motivated while many of his friends are burned out from parental pressures and years of weight cutting...kids who haven't even hit high school yet.

I believe very strongly that my children's academics should be well-rounded. I also want them to have many doors open. My main issues are with finding time for the different outside activities (beyond their passions) and also wondering how many activities actually need to be organized because I really think they need some "down" time as well to play, run around outside, and just be kids. I am thinking there is a lot to be said for just "being" sometimes so I don't want to overschedule.

Thank you for all the wonderful response. I am enjoying reading them! They are giving me a lot to think about and vocalizing some of the things I have running around in my mind.

[AnitaMcC]

I believe very strongly that my children's academics should be well-rounded. I also want them to have many doors open. My main issues are with finding time for the different outside activities (beyond their passions) and also wondering how many activities actually need to be organized because I really think they need some "down" time as well to play, run around outside, and just be kids. I am thinking there is a lot to be said for just "being" sometimes so I don't want to overschedule.


Yep, I have to work hard to make sure our kids get down time. They have a night or two free during the week, and most of the weekends. I am a stickler for making sure they do not have something going on continuously. Drives my daughter nuts when we make her not go to Kung Fu. But there are days that Dh and I don't want to do anything either.

Most of the activities for our kids are once a week or every other week or so. Their Kung Fu is the only thing that is more... and only Dd is there for hours 3-5 times a week. The boys go for a 30-45 minute class 2-3 times a week.

My issue is that the boys only "down time" activity is video games, computer, and TV. They drive me bonkers about these and I have to force them to go outside just to "play". So we have a rule... no computer/video playing Sunday 10pm till Friday 6pm. They aren't happy about this-LOL. But if they don't have guidance in their playing then they are dangerous-LOL.

I wish they would get "creative" in their playing just once in awhile-LOL. But Ds#1 isn't imaginative in playing (Aspeger Syndrome). He just does his science stuff, legos, magic cards, etc (concrete activities). He loves to read too. Ds#2 isn't able to sit still very long and his playing is mostly running around and doing crazy/dangerous things. So I try to keep him structured in his activities so he doesn't try to jump off the roof or something (ADHHHHHD). Ds #3 has no imagination at all (autism spectrum/ADHD). He just imitates/acts out his current obsession video game (currently Metroid) when he isn't playing the games. He will play with legos... imitating his video games. Otherwise he also is non stop and if he isn't obsessing one game he will obsess on a TV show. For a summer it was Ninja Warrior.... that boy made my house an obstacle course including spider walking down the hallways-LOL.

[Truscifi]

Ah, yet another question I hadn't considered yet. Ds is only 6, and between my and dh's schedules and karate (which we do as a family), there isn't time for much else. I have been eagerly reading all the posts on this one for consideration in the next couple of years though.

[lionfamily1999]

Do you think it is important for your child to be well-rounded? What does it mean to you?
Yes. Well-rounded, imo, means being able to function and interract with people on a variety of subjects. I think you should at least know the rules to the more popular games, even if you don't play, if only so you will understand sports analogies. You should be well read, at least to the point where you can read a decent size novel and will have enough knowledge again to interract with others. The basics are a must (3Rs) and should be learned to the high school level, at least. With history and science you should know enough to NOT embarrass yourself (anyone seen the Fail Blog where the woman develops a conspiracy theory, because there's a rainbow in her backyard sprinkler?).

Do you think kids who are excellant (not talking just good or great in their local community but higher level) in their field of interest need to be well-rounded...
Yes. Ime, there's not much worse than hearing someone with great talent incapable of forming a coherant statement when they get behind the mic, or better, getting basic geography/science/history facts wrong. If anything, those that are excelling at the rate where they expect to have some form of celebrity should be capable of public speaking.

does a child who is prodigious in math need to have other interests or does a top gymnast need to do other activities to make herself more well-rounded?
If by 'do' you mean 'take part in' then I'd say no... ish. Yes, the mathy child needs to learn to read and should read. The gymnast should have an idea of what's going on in a (fill in the sport) game.

Is there a point a child can reach or an amount of talent in a certain field or activity where well-rounded is no longer important since certainly working toward high skill levels in most fields involves many hours of study or practice limiting time for other activities?
I do not think that children should specialize in one topic to the point where everything else is pushed onto the back burner. Basic skills are important, you will not (imo) do well in any field if you seriously lack any knowledge concerning other topics. A gymnast will still need to read contracts, figure out her pay and schedule. She'll probably travel and she'll need some idea of where the countries are and what sort of culture she'll find there.

If your child had an extreme interest or ability in something would your values encourage the child to excel in that field or would you encourage balancing interests?
I would be happy to let them fly along, but not to the detriment of other subjects. I would not let my math wiz skip out on every other topic, or my gymnast live at the gym.

That's just me though ;) Oh, and of course there are exceptions.

[Nan in Mass]

I think everyone needs a skill that can be relied upon to make a living (even a small living) -- and bonus points if it's inherently useful to him at home, even without the income potential. That would be a practical skill. And I think I'll steal patchfire's word "outlet" for artistic and athletic pursuits that one does because one loves them so well... something more intense than a hobby, but not necessarily something that would be reliable for income. And I'd add to it that everyone should have some intellectual interest. Something that just fascinates them even though there's just no way you'd ever be hired as a Great-Dismal-Swamp-History-Expert. (LOL) And I think everyone should have a second language, however rusty -- at least enough to travel.

In a perfect situation, I think one should have more than one of each of those. And you're also going to need at least minimal skills in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and a basic grasp of the laws of the land, because even professional athletes need to be able to tell if their accountant is cheating them.

Beyond that, if DS wants to spend twice as much time on math and science as he does on anything else, I'm fine with that. If he were as obsessed with something less practical I'd be more inclined to make him expand his horizons... But math and science make a fairly good living, he has artistic and athletic outlets and he's starting on some purely intellectual interests. I am insisting on keeping some options open within math and science. He thinks he wants to go into engineering, and he might be right, but he's too young to focus on that to the exclusion of all else. He doesn't have to simultaneously prepare to be a linguist or anything, but I think it's fair to keep finance, pure math, statistics, computer programming, and the major sciences (biology/ chemistry/ physics) on the table. For now at least.

I had to make this decision (mine are 22, 19, and 15). Mine are not profoundly gifted, but none are well-rounded. They are all lopsided people. And we do gymnastics GRIN.

The short version: I would let them be lopsided. I would concentrate on academic skills and learning to learn something and learning to think. If they learned to do those things through one subject, I would assume that they could apply it later to learn anything they wanted or needed. I would be careful, though, not to make them so lopsided that no college would welcome them. I would make sure they had math through algebra because otherwise, if they changed their mind and decided to become something requiring math, they would be pretty handicapped. Many accounts of unschoolers (which is sometimes an extreme form of lopsidedness) end with the student being mad at the parent for not making them do math. Math seems to be something that is hard to learn fast later when you need it. I would be careful about music and foreign languages, too, because those seem to have developmental windows.

The long version:

When my children were little, I didn't worry too much. We dealt with the gymnastics by refusing to do weekend practices and taking the children away for most of the summer. That prevented them from being too good. None of them were blow-you-away good at it, anyway, although all three could have competed at the national level if we had let their coaches push them. We chose coaches and gyms who would allow them (albeit reluctently) to only do 3 or 4 practices a week rather than the more standard 6, and not go every week year round. We did the normal school things during school. I expected everyone to read and do math well, but I assumed that they would struggle with writing. I insisted that everyone do music, learn to draw, learn to be competent outdoors (know their plants and animals, build a fire, cook, camp, row, paddle, sail, swim, cimb a mountain, patch themselves up if they got hurt, etc.), travel, and learn a foreign language. I was careful not to traumatize them with too much history or upsetting literature. We were careful to supply then engineers lots of building materials and legos and the quiet middle one (who was the best gymnast) with an endless stack of comics and National Geographics and a quiet corner of his own to read them in.

As they got a bit bigger, I had some decisions to make. I talked to some people and did some reading. The upshot was that I decided that it would be better to let the children be lopsided. It was actually spelling which brought this to a head. About middle school, I realized that I had a choice: I could spend an hour a day on spelling and wind up with a child who was at best a barely adequate speller, or I could put that time towards letting my child get better at something he was already good at. I chose the latter.

When they got to high school, I really had to set our goals for each child. I decided that they had to have:

-Enough academic skills to survive college
-A well-rounded enough transcript to get into an interesting college and to meet our town's high school graduation requirements (but it could be barely so, and it wouldn't have to be good enough for every college to consider them)
-Enough outside academics or testing to verify that transcript
-Read enough across the subjects to have a sense of perspective
-An emotional outlet (music or drawing or writing or a sport)
-A socially acceptable escape (preferably reading)
-Be competent in our family list of musts (that earlier list)
-Learn something that they could use a second part-time job if necessary (lifeguarding or carpentry or something)
-Learn how to learn something
-Do one subject rigorously enough that they learned to think

I think that you can learn to think through any subject - foreign language/Latin, geography/anthropolgy, the whys and points of views of history, writing/logic, mathematical problems and proofs, science experiments..., but it has to be studied in depth. Once you've learned this, you can apply that thinking to anything else. I also think you can learn to apply discipline and learn something in one subject and then apply that to other subjects. (Mine learned to learn in gymnastics: break a project into pieces, work on each piece in a disciplined way, put the pieces together, practise the whole thing, etc.)

Deciding not to try to make mine well-rounded, to let them learn to think and learn and emote by concentrating on their interests, freed us up to do some interesting things. In the end, I want interesting, competent adults, not necessarily well-rounded ones. To make a living, they need to be very good at something, not adequate at everything. This let us concentrate on skills during high school, and let the child cover only the bare minimum of content in anything they didn't care about. Content in areas of interest is much easier to absorb. This made much happier high schoolers, since this is what mine would have done if left to chose for themselves.

If I'd had a prodigy of some sort, I would have let them focus on that even more, provided it was something that they could do as an adult. If it wasn't (gymnastics, for example), then I would have stuck to the plan I outlined above. Mine could teach gymnastics or have their own gym as an adult, but to do that, they need more skills than just gymnastics. If it was something like music or art, something notoriously hard to make enough money to support a family, I might encourage the child to either find a way to make money on the side in a way that didn't interfere with the first love (masonry and music don't mix - too hard on the hands), or find a secondary way to make money using the love, like teaching. This is a tricky thing, though, because a few people do make a living doing the thing they love and those people tend to be the ones that did nothing but that growing up. I spoke to an old woman who was a famous concert violinist once about her education. When I asked how she had balanced all the things one needs to learn in high school and the vast quantities of time needed to practise violin, she said that she had been told that she had a gift and with that gift, an obligation to develop it and share it with the world, and had been excused from many of the normal high school classes. She was taught the bare minimum of academics and lots of violin. When I asked whether she had been pushed, she said that nobody had considered arranging for her talent to be developped to be pushing. She implied: of course I didn't study the same things as the other students; I had a responsibility to develop this gift. She took it all for granted. Somehow the people raising her managed to make her feel that she was responisble for her gift and special, but not burdened or better than anyone else.

This got really long. Sorry. It is something I have spent years thinking about.

-Nan

[Jill]

Though we are not as far along, my current sense of this is something like Nan's. DS has to have enough exposure to things he does not excel at to at least pass the tests he will be taking at various grades in our state. (homeschooling laws) But since adults are not exactly expected to be very well-rounded in their jobs and many who excel in a field are rather focused on it, even in their "hobbies", we are comfortable with ds being somewhat lopsided too. Note the qualifier "somewhat."

[zaichiki]

I spoke to an old woman who was a famous concert violinist once about her education.

Somehow the people raising her managed to make her feel that she was responisble for her gift and special, but not burdened or better than anyone else.

This is a discussion I just had with dh last night. We decided that we have an obligation, as parents, to allow our children to develop an area of unusual talent to the best of the child's ability as far as we are able. (Meaning that if we have the means and it does not impose an unreasonable burden on other members of the family, we will pay for extra time/classes/ workshops for training and performing and networking opportunities.) We have not made it plain to our child that she has any more responsibility to develop her talent than anyone else. Not sure how I feel about that.

A child might choose to spend his/her time on that talent at the expense of other things. This would make them more lopsided and less well-rounded, right? I'm thinking of Saturday mornings. If, for example, more training opportunities are available on Saturday mornings, then the child would forgo a Saturday morning basketball team, Saturday morning Scouting activities, or spending Saturday mornings lounging around the house watching cartoons. After all, you can't do *everything.*

It does sometimes feel as though some kids are given a gift of talent (perhaps it starts with an unusual dedication and motivation) in a particular area. If that it the case, we believe that we as parents can't just step back and let it go.

[Arch At Home]

For me it is important for my children to be well-rounded but I am not sure that my definition is the popular definition. In college I lived with a bunch of very bright women. Some focused so much on their academics that they didn't know how to cook and had troubles having a conversation about any topic other than their academic field. They had not learned to type in highschool because that was not taught to those on a college track (late 70's and early 80's).

Fast forwarding to 2010, in my firm those people who have a wide range of skills both in our profession (architecture) and outside of it (marketing, management, graphic design, web design, networking, and etc.) are those that have survived the layoffs that our company has endured in the last year. As a firm we also work with national/international experts on our projects. I have observed that the experts that are the most helpful are those that see the connections beyond their particular specialty, both within the field of construction but how our work impacts and is impacted by the environment and socio-economic factors.

I don't think that this type of well-roundedness is achieved by bombarding a child with numberous activies. Exposure is good. My children watch the news, read a wide range of books, live in a diverse neighborhood, volunteer regularly at the local food bank, participate in Scouting and Shakespeare, attend local cultural and sporting events mostly free or low cost, and bowl. I highly encourage imaginative play. They are constantly re-enacting the books they are reading and movies they see. We often have discussions about how things are inter-related, the impact of one action has on other things, and the evolution of ideas and topics.

I personally want my children to not only be academically skilled but also be able to fend for themselves in the kitchen, to be able to do their own mending, change the oil, and be able to create with their hands. By being able to do this they will also be less impacted by the ups and downs of the economy.

[Nan in Mass]

This is a SUPER good point. My husband has survived the ups and downs (and finds it much more amusing and challenging GRIN) by working for small start-up companies and says the same thing. Thank you for posting this. I tend towards letting students specialize, but you are right about not letting them specialize too much. Did you see the thread about education in the 1700s or of the US founders or whatever it was called? The one with all the discussion about how growing up on a farm helped make people better students because farmers have to be able to do a little of many things? Maybe that is related to this?
-Nan

[zaichiki]

Did you see the thread about education in the 1700s or of the US founders or whatever it was called? The one with all the discussion about how growing up on a farm helped make people better students because farmers have to be able to do a little of many things? Maybe that is related to this?
-Nan

Oh, hey, (delighted) -- we live on a farm. Hooray for farms! :tongue_smilie:

[mominsac]

This has been a very interesting thread and thanks all for sharing their perspectives. What I saw reading them is that we all as parents have thought through this issue * a lot * for our particular children, with the best intentions. Everyone will have their certain take on it, based on their own experience, values and the individual child, but, in the end, we've defined "well-rounded" at various different levels, and they are all very good points. I know for me, some were "given" expectations in our family (1-4 and 6, below) so I didn't highlight them as much but I'm glad others did highlight them more. At least for me, they are all important and part of being "well-rounded" and shall I say means to becoming "well-adjusted" adults. Even for the prodigies.

1) ability to become self-reliant and resilient to survive, or problem-solve through life's ups/downs - this covers all the more practical and life-skills mentioned, including ultimately, financial independence, afterall, we can't be there for them forever!

2) general broad intellectual or practical knowledge - well enough to be confident individuals, conduct an decent conversation if needed. This includes "knowing" or being well-versed about the world around us including how things work (around the house, our society, life), rest of the world/cultures/religion, politics, the arts, musics, sports, you name it. You may have just heard about it, read or observed it, or "exposed" to it with hands-on experience.

3) general academic abilities - this includes speaking/writing well (ie. ability to communicate), read, general mathematical abilities, qualitative and quantitative analytical skills to think on your own

4) Contributing to the world and the general good. Responsibility, community service and helping others....In some sense, this may include "contributing your talents"

5) Finding and following your passions and talents, many times, these will be areas that the kids excel in, sometimes it may not be, but its so important to have a dream, and learn how to develop/fulfill/achieve such dream or goals. Such passions or talents may be academic/intellectual endeavors, or other ECs: athletics, arts, leadership, cooking, community service -- all of the things mentioned above

6) Being happy while developing those passions/talents, afterall, we all want our children to become content well-adjusted adults. There will be ups and downs, and sometimes the going will be tough that the kids need the firm encouragement or guiding hand, but it should never be forced upon them long-term.

I hope I did justice here

[Nan in Mass]

OK - I figured out how to say what I mean LOL (finally). I want my children to be well-rounded living-wise and to a lesser extent academic skills-wise, but I don't particularly care if they are well-rounded as far as academic content goes. I am willing to let them round out the content on their own. I think it is safer to concentrate on being well-rounded living-wise. There is plenty of time to fill in the content they need and are curious about as adults. And if they have reasonable academic skills, it is fairly easy for them to do so.
-Nan

[Nan in Mass]

Here is that thread: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145780

[Donna]

Nan,

I enjoyed your post and think it most lines up with my current thinking on this topic. I also feel like it is my responsibility as a parent to allow my dd the opportunity to nuture her gifts and talents within the confines of what we can comfortably do but also do not want her to feel like she is responsible to anyone for them. I want her to be able to function in the "real" world, follow her dreams, and be academically able to pursue any other options she might consider (not burn any bridges so to speak at this point).

Thank you all for the wonderful, thoughtful responses.

[Nan in Mass]

You're welcome. I had another thought, too. You know how people here talk about going deep or going wide or accelerating? Many children here are bright enough to do all of them at once, but mine aren't. When my youngest was little (the only one I homeschooled under 5th grade), I deliberately chose to go wide rather than deep or accelerate. I added a little acceleration and depth, of course, but mostly I used up my son's school time and energy by adding foreign languages, puzzles, chess, music, art, and tons of non-fiction library books. I thought I hadn't made any decisions early on, but apparently I did and just forgot GRIN. I can tell you that at this point (15 years old), I absolutely would make the same decision the same way again. That worked very, very well.
-Nan