What do you think?
Rate this book
Hyper Education: Why Good Schools, Good Grades, and Good Behavior Are Not Enough
An up-close look at the education arms race of after-school learning, academic competitions, and the perceived failure of even our best schools to educate children
Beyond soccer leagues, music camps, and drama lessons, today’s youth are in an education arms race that begins in elementary school. In Hyper Education , Pawan Dhingra uncovers the growing world of high-achievement education and the after-school learning centers, spelling bees, and math competitions that it has spawned. It is a world where immigrant families vie with other Americans to be at the head of the class, putting in hours of studying and testing in order to gain a foothold in the supposed meritocracy of American public education. A world where enrichment centers, like Kumon, have seen 194 percent growth since 2002 and target children as young as three. Even families and teachers who avoid after-school academics are getting swept up.
Drawing on over 100 in-depth interviews with teachers, tutors, principals, children, and parents, Dhingra delves into the why people participate in this phenomenon and examines how schools, families, and communities play their part. Moving past "Tiger Mom" stereotypes, he addresses why Asian American and white families practice what he calls "hyper education" and whether or not it makes sense.
By taking a behind-the-scenes look at the Scripps National Spelling Bee, other national competitions, and learning centers, Dhingra shows why good schools, good grades, and good behavior are seen as not enough for high-achieving students and their parents and why the education arms race is likely to continue to expand.
Beyond soccer leagues, music camps, and drama lessons, today’s youth are in an education arms race that begins in elementary school. In Hyper Education , Pawan Dhingra uncovers the growing world of high-achievement education and the after-school learning centers, spelling bees, and math competitions that it has spawned. It is a world where immigrant families vie with other Americans to be at the head of the class, putting in hours of studying and testing in order to gain a foothold in the supposed meritocracy of American public education. A world where enrichment centers, like Kumon, have seen 194 percent growth since 2002 and target children as young as three. Even families and teachers who avoid after-school academics are getting swept up.
Drawing on over 100 in-depth interviews with teachers, tutors, principals, children, and parents, Dhingra delves into the why people participate in this phenomenon and examines how schools, families, and communities play their part. Moving past "Tiger Mom" stereotypes, he addresses why Asian American and white families practice what he calls "hyper education" and whether or not it makes sense.
By taking a behind-the-scenes look at the Scripps National Spelling Bee, other national competitions, and learning centers, Dhingra shows why good schools, good grades, and good behavior are seen as not enough for high-achieving students and their parents and why the education arms race is likely to continue to expand.
- GenresEducationNonfiction
352 pages, Hardcover
Published April 28, 2020
7 people are currently reading
159 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
December 5, 2020
This a complex, compassionate, and challenging account of families engaged in "hyper-education" for their children, which is education above and beyond what is provided by schools pursued not for remediation or extra help but as an attempt to get ahead in a meritocratic race.
Although Dhingra's case studies are from middle and upper-class American families of South Asian descent, he argues and I agree that the conclusions are much more generally applicable. As Dingra argues, much of the narrative about Asian Americans and education is premised upon an implicit hierarchy in which White middle-class Americans are "the norm," Blacks and Latinx the problem, and Asian Americans the model minority who are nevertheless seen as the problem because they go "too far" with education.
As Dhingra carefully argues, there are real problems with the way some Asian American families approach education, but these problems reflect much wider problems within American education and society. You cannot set up a system as a giant never-ending competition and then act surprised when people are competitive.
But it's not all doom and gloom, and the families Dhingra profiles are not at all one-dimensional cautionary tales. The problem is not a focus on academics, or even particularly intensive parenting. The problem is a system where failure is presented as such a terrifying option that people are motivated primarily by fear.
Treating childhood and education as a meritocratic race be flawed, but many of those engaged in running it have nevertheless found meaning.
Although Dhingra's case studies are from middle and upper-class American families of South Asian descent, he argues and I agree that the conclusions are much more generally applicable. As Dingra argues, much of the narrative about Asian Americans and education is premised upon an implicit hierarchy in which White middle-class Americans are "the norm," Blacks and Latinx the problem, and Asian Americans the model minority who are nevertheless seen as the problem because they go "too far" with education.
As Dhingra carefully argues, there are real problems with the way some Asian American families approach education, but these problems reflect much wider problems within American education and society. You cannot set up a system as a giant never-ending competition and then act surprised when people are competitive.
But it's not all doom and gloom, and the families Dhingra profiles are not at all one-dimensional cautionary tales. The problem is not a focus on academics, or even particularly intensive parenting. The problem is a system where failure is presented as such a terrifying option that people are motivated primarily by fear.
Treating childhood and education as a meritocratic race be flawed, but many of those engaged in running it have nevertheless found meaning.
April 4, 2023
Hyper Education does a deep dive into the developing trend of increased education as an extracurricular activity. I found the book after reading an article about a growing trend in affluent communities of parents enrolling their children in tutoring when their kids aren't behind in school. This book gets a lot more granular than the article, but is based on a similar observation. The book focuses heavily on Indian Americans and other Asian Americans, and also focuses heavily on national spelling bees, while also acknowledging math and science studies as extracurricular activates rather than (and in some cases in addition to) sports, music, and other activities more widely accepted by western cultures.
The drive for parents to push their children into these situations in based on an assumption that extreme academic excellence as children and youth equates to more success (particularly financial success) in later life. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to support this. While acceptable or advanced academic performance leads to better higher education opportunities, which is often correlated with increased success, I don't believe that a 12 year old being able to spell autochthonous or chiaroscurist (two finalist words from recent years) is a good predictor of future success. There are plenty of doctors, lawyers, scientists, and executives who were B students in high school, went to State school, and yet have gone on to be extremely successful. Throughout the book, I felt bad for these little kids, some as young as six, who are going to school during the day, and then doing 4 hours of "extra" academic work per day. It all just seems very excessive and not conducive to a fulfilling or happy childhood.
The drive for parents to push their children into these situations in based on an assumption that extreme academic excellence as children and youth equates to more success (particularly financial success) in later life. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to support this. While acceptable or advanced academic performance leads to better higher education opportunities, which is often correlated with increased success, I don't believe that a 12 year old being able to spell autochthonous or chiaroscurist (two finalist words from recent years) is a good predictor of future success. There are plenty of doctors, lawyers, scientists, and executives who were B students in high school, went to State school, and yet have gone on to be extremely successful. Throughout the book, I felt bad for these little kids, some as young as six, who are going to school during the day, and then doing 4 hours of "extra" academic work per day. It all just seems very excessive and not conducive to a fulfilling or happy childhood.
August 26, 2023
An interesting topic close to my heart- Singapore's tuition industry has never been more prominent even as our government schools close down and merge for lack of students.
My ethical concern with tuition, or private tutoring, has always been this: it is least available to those who need it most, and thereby becomes another vehicle for persistent inequality in a neoliberal (I hate using this word but how can I not?) "meritocracy".
Yet while I personally did not grow up buried under a deluge of additional classes, my mother has always reminded me that tuition, for those who have means, is a practical choice in any society of merit. "If you could afford it and your child somehow fell behind, would you not?"
This book drives home the reasons for tutoring, or Hyper Education, in an Asian American context. In addition to the above argument, it suggests that tutoring is a way to occupy a child's time gainfully lest they waste it away on games or bad company. It also highlights the bias against Asian parenting as "oppressive", "unloving" and altogether "deviant", suggesting that a wider conversation about embracing diverse parenting styles is in order.
Applying this back to Singapore, our country is different from America in that the pursuers of Hyper Education, aka Asian parents, are not just upper-middle class professionals, but the entire population, Gini coefficient and all. I dream of a world where public education really is sufficient for our students to find themselves and realise their aspirations.
But this book itself was an anthology of badly trimmed interviews, and there's no mincing that I could barely get through it. Take its learning points from me and spare yourself the dreary hours.
My ethical concern with tuition, or private tutoring, has always been this: it is least available to those who need it most, and thereby becomes another vehicle for persistent inequality in a neoliberal (I hate using this word but how can I not?) "meritocracy".
Yet while I personally did not grow up buried under a deluge of additional classes, my mother has always reminded me that tuition, for those who have means, is a practical choice in any society of merit. "If you could afford it and your child somehow fell behind, would you not?"
This book drives home the reasons for tutoring, or Hyper Education, in an Asian American context. In addition to the above argument, it suggests that tutoring is a way to occupy a child's time gainfully lest they waste it away on games or bad company. It also highlights the bias against Asian parenting as "oppressive", "unloving" and altogether "deviant", suggesting that a wider conversation about embracing diverse parenting styles is in order.
Applying this back to Singapore, our country is different from America in that the pursuers of Hyper Education, aka Asian parents, are not just upper-middle class professionals, but the entire population, Gini coefficient and all. I dream of a world where public education really is sufficient for our students to find themselves and realise their aspirations.
But this book itself was an anthology of badly trimmed interviews, and there's no mincing that I could barely get through it. Take its learning points from me and spare yourself the dreary hours.
September 28, 2020
The book follows spelling-bee contestants from South Asian families and, separately, tracks the rise of paid supplemental education services since the passage of No Child Left Behind. I learned that Kumon starts at age 3, and spelling-bee tutors can charge $200 an hour. The families' emphasis on hyper-education is completely rational. They are understandably responding to a lack of social capital, and the market-obsessed neoliberalism. We live in a winner-takes-all era, and, unless you have social connections, the competition starts early.
The spelling-bee champions genuinely like it, and the author reasonably asks how it's so different from AAU basketball or dance lessons. Nevertheless, kids spend six hours a weekend at the supplemental math classes, and that amps up pressure and leads some to depression and self-harm. The author proposes some solutions, including focusing less on tiger parenting and more on the free-range stuff. And, maybe in the next generation, the economy will change enough and the kids can come to believe that, as one of the moms in the book puts it, "I kind of feel average is good too. I mean, average still can get you a happy life and a successful job."
The spelling-bee champions genuinely like it, and the author reasonably asks how it's so different from AAU basketball or dance lessons. Nevertheless, kids spend six hours a weekend at the supplemental math classes, and that amps up pressure and leads some to depression and self-harm. The author proposes some solutions, including focusing less on tiger parenting and more on the free-range stuff. And, maybe in the next generation, the economy will change enough and the kids can come to believe that, as one of the moms in the book puts it, "I kind of feel average is good too. I mean, average still can get you a happy life and a successful job."
March 8, 2021
A fascinating examination of the cultural logic of first gen affluent Asian American parents in the United States who rely on supplemental education and educational competition as a distinguishing strategy in the "education arms race." This book is a sympathetic portrait of parents and places the critique by administrators and educators in the context of a long campaign to tell immigrants and people of color how they should parent. This book is an essential companion to Annette Lareau's Unequal Childhoods and Jennifer Lee and Min Zhou's Asian American Achievement Paradox
November 8, 2021
Interesting book about Indian Americans and other Asian Americans looking at the American school system. They find it not academically sound, too chaotic, and focused in achievement. They see it as more focused on sports and not academic. But they also look at their hyper focused obsession on education and the pressure it puts on their kids.
January 22, 2020
A look at mainly Asian and Indian students and the expectations and stereotypes that they experience through their education. Other students and topics talked about as well. Interesting look at certain topics involving a students or parents expectations.
May 28, 2020
Very interesting, well researched perspective
July 26, 2024
the chapters got a bit long winded and i think it could have been broken up better but overall i enjoyed and learned alot and challenged my own views w new ideas and ways of thinking
April 2, 2025
Interesting read, but a lot of the quotes and citations border on outdated notions and the brain drain is not addressed fully.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews