I am of Indian origin and my parents always brought me up with one principle in relation to academics – “Work hard and you’ll reap rewards.” For the past few years, I’ve really put it into action and I hope to do so once I’m off to university as well. As a teenager now, I’ve always been pushed by my parents to do well. For them, “Education comes first.” But I know that I am a good student. I know that I have worked hard. And I know that I have reaped rewards. My parents did encourage me to work hard but at the end of the day, they did give me my space and if I didn’t want to work hard and chose to be a couch potato instead, they’d say that it would be my loss. And when I struggled to complete the coursework the night before the deadline, they’d say nothing but I like to imagine that in their heads they are going “I told you so.” But that’s just me. Recently, I was watching ‘The World’s Greatest Musical Prodigies’ that included Alex Prior, a musical prodigy as well, and that made me think whether competition in children was really taken too far.

I was watching the programme with my undivided attention. It wasn’t the first time I’d seen something like that. Even before, on Channel 4, I’d seen Mark Dolan present his search for the world’s smartest child. Watching the children in these shows made me really ponder if it was nature or nurture that defined a prodigy. What is a prodigy? The Oxford English Dictionary describes a prodigy as “a person, especially a young one, with exceptional abilities”. But I saw Mark Dolan bring something up that I found my self wondering – what defines a prodigy? Who decides who the smartest child is? How is the smartest child given the title of a ‘prodigy’? If Alex Prior had so many musical prodigies to include in his concerto, why was it that he only picked one out of a group of four? I believe that today, if nature and parenting cause a prodigy to be born, some day, am I going to expect a generation of prodigies? Who is going to top that generation of prodigies then?

Playing the devil’s advocate, I wondered if it was the parents to blame for this idea of having a prodigy. These days competition is every where. There’s only a first prize. Otherwise there’s no prize. Winning isn’t the most important thing, it’s the only thing that matters. Such are the beliefs now days. I saw one of the Chinese musical prodigies on ‘The World’s Greatest Musical Prodigies’ say that he tried not to think of his friends playing outside because that would be his temptation to not concentrate on his piano. I was intrigued by the fact that an eight year old boy wasn’t out playing with his friends but chose to play a piano indoors. Competition indeed is everywhere. China is home to so many pianists. Even in India, my cousin worked astoundingly hard to top her school. Tuition at six a.m. in the morning seriously wouldn’t be my cup of tea. My cousin told me that in India, the person who got 99.8% in his exams could possibly miss out on one of the best universities and that really stunned me.

Even in Britain today, from Year 10 itself, I found myself worrying that I was academically good but what about extra-curricular activities? I know a friend, who has French tuition for her extra GCSE, did trampolining about twice a week and was in the local theatre group. On top of that she was a brilliant musician and does exceptionally well academically – an A* student. I was just wondering how she juggled a myriad of hobbies and still managed to excel in all of them. But what really struck me was that she loved all of the activities she did. Was there a very fine line between wanting to do a bunch of extra-curricular activities and being made to do them? I found myself wondering that maybe it wasn’t that bad. Maybe, competition in children must be encouraged. Children learn best when they are younger. Teach a four year old anything and they’ll pick it up faster than lightning. The competitive edge made these children stronger. It probably filled them up with skills that their pushy parents probably knew that one day, definitely some day, it would pay off. A parent wants nothing more than seeing their child be successful. I’m only a teenager so I wouldn’t know about pushy parents. But then with a positive outlook on competition between children, I wondered that denying a child his or her right to childhood – could it hamper the social skills that a child would need to be a high achiever? Could it possibly dampen the prospects of a child knowing the reality of life where not everyone is a robot? Questions clouded my brain as I watched the programme, questioning myself when the musical prodigies seemed to struggle, but reassuring myself when I saw them succeed. Are parents pushing their children too far because they want to see their dreams in children? Should a child be made to do so many activities that it strains family bonds? Is the role of a parent a parent or is the role of a parent an educator? For me, my parents have been parents and educators but which is the more domineering role?

As these questions clog my head, I wanted to leave my opinion of this unbiased. If my parents hadn’t encouraged me and pushed me to revise, I probably would have struggled a lot more. If my parents didn’t teach me in primary school, maybe I would have had the uphill battle of doing simple maths problems. But then, did I ever miss out on things that other children did – probably not. Other children out there, who perhaps are pushed a lot more than I am, maybe they missed out on childhood. I was left trying to imagine whether a child with exceptional social skills and mediocre academic skills was better in any way than a child with impeccable academic skills and average social skills. I genuinely couldn’t decide whether one outweighed the other or not. I guess that must be left for you to decide. I am undecided.