|
|
|
|
|
GOLDSEA |
ASIAMS.NET |
ASIAN AMERICAN ISSUES
ARE IVY DEGREES WORTH THE SACRIFICES
ending their kids to ivy league universities is the dream of every Asian American parent. Or so it seems. And there is no shortage of young AA willing to oblige. As of 2000, Asian Americans made up 12-19% of the undergrad enrollments of the top-20 ivy league universities.
No one questions the prestige associated with ivy degrees. In fact, sneer critics, that's the only thing bought with the extra money. And even that, they add, is wearing thin in a nation in which he cultural center of gravity has shifted to California.
It's true that investments in high ivy tuitions often don't show up in career earnings when compared with graduates of public universities of comparable student body profiles. But the criticisms run deeper than return on investment. Some Asian Americans who have attended ivy league colleges have come away regretting their decisions for other reasons.
Foremost is the sense that the ivies are structured for the benefit of legatees, the progeny of blueblooded alumni. Comprising upwards of 40% of some ivies, the legatees are often exempted from stringent admissions standards. The result is that AA students with excellent credentials are the workhorses preserving the institutions' high academic reputations, thereby giving a free ride to undeserving legatees.
Another common complaint is that the deck is stacked socially against Asian males in a system designed to preserve the princely status quo of the scions of WASP families. A disproportionate number of attractive AA females are admitted by the ivies, some have observed, while far fewer attractive AA males are admitted. This subtle bias, suspect critics, is implemented in the screening interviews used by most ivies.
Then there's the Eurocentric worldview imposed by the courses. Not to mention the lousy weather, bland food and having to put up with locals hostile toward Asians. Contrast all this against the majority-ease lifestyles enjoyed by the AA in, say, the UC campuses.
The bragging rights an ivy education affords parents, conclude critics, are far outweighed by the psychic and emotional sacrifices exacted from their kids.
Does an ivy education provide rewards commensurate with the sacrifices? Or is it a trap for AA with overzealous parents with old-world views?
This interactive article is closed to new input.
Discussions posted during the past year remain available for browsing.
CONTACT US
|
ADVERTISING INFO
© 1996-2013 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.
|
|
|
|
WHAT YOU SAY
[This page is closed to new input. --Ed.]
(Updated
Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 06:01:20 PM)
I'm a freshman at college, so I just went through that process last year. I was raised - by my parents and my high school - with the thought that if I didn't go to an Ivy League school, then I was "stupid." I don't know if it was just my high school, but college acceptances were really bad last year; usually we send about 10 out of 100 students to Ivy League schools, last year we sent about 3 or 4. I applied to the lvies and was rejected from all of them. So, I ended up going to SUNY Buffalo after being invited to their Honors program. I talked to the students here and they are amazed that I applied to 13 school, they applied to around 5 and even that was considered a lot. At my school it was not uncommon to apply to 10 or 14 schools.
I feel that going to a non-ivy school and doing well is probably better than going to and ivy undergrad and killing your self for a three point whatever GPA. My sister is at Cornell and she tells me that the work load there is very heavy. Grades are relative. Obviously if you go to a college where all the students were in the top 10 or whatever in high school, the competition will be even greater!
However, I do understand that it is a name brand school and to some students and employers it means a lot.
I guess the question is is it better to go to a non-ivy and do really well or go to a name brand school and do average?
lavender
Wednesday, December 12, 2001 at 18:53:41 (PST)
Harvey Mudd alumnus,
Bravo, bravo.
I couldn't have said it any better. you sure are more perceptive and critically analytical than some upper-class white-supremacists that I've met while attending Cornell.
Cornellian
Monday, December 10, 2001 at 00:28:27 (PST)
"top-20 Ivies"??
last time I checked, there were 8 universities in the Ivy League
darcy
Friday, December 07, 2001 at 20:49:14 (PST)
["Ivy" is a common shorthand for elite private colleges, primarily on the east coast. --Ed]
"How is it that -- even as Asians supposedly dominate sciences -- most breakthough technologies (computers, the internet, space flight) were invented by whites?"
This is an often-repeated mantra, by Whites who cling to their sense of superiority, and also by some Asian Americans who have been totally defeated by this nonsense. It is usually followed by statements to the effect that Asians copy from White innovations, blah blah blah.
It is in fact no exaggeration to call this one of the most commonly (if tacitly) accepted bullshit stories of all time in America.
Those who subscribe to it usually have a poor understanding of how science is actually done and how innovations actually happen. Science and technology build upon prior work, that's the bottom line; breakthroughs simply do not happen in a vacuum.
All significant 20th century innovations and inventions follow this pattern. Each scientist stands on the shoulders of the giants of the previous generation.
Many people know that Einstein's theory of relativity goes far beyond Newton's theory of motion, but how many people actually understand that Einstein could not have done his work without the Calculus techniques invented by Newton?
Newton, in turn, build his work upon prior art established by his predecessors. This is how science and technology evolve. This is how true breakthroughs happen.
Thus, the reason why Whites have been responsible for recent inventions in world history is not that Whites have some sort of innate creativity, or some x factor that allows them to "innovate at the drawing board" more so than other races. That's pure bullshit. Whites, not Asians, made significant breakthroughs because the scientific traditions, institutions and infrastructures that allow such breakthroughs to happen were established in Europe, not Asia. It's as simple as that.
What this means is that the situation has changed today and will continue to change in the future. In the West, Asians are taking massive advantage of existing establishments that have largely been abandoned by the complacent Whites. This is why American research institutions have an overwhelming Asian majority - 80% is typical.
Having seen the success and domination that Europeans have achieved through technology, Asians in Asia are establishing similar facilities and environments. Thus, the worldwide technology race is no longer a one-horse race. It has become a race where Asians are becoming the overwhelming favorite.
If I were a betting man, I would put my money on the next Einstein being Chinese. It's simple statistics. In China you've got 1.2 billion people producing millions of prodigies and thousands of minds at the supergenius level. For the first time in history, this massive collection of brain power has widespread access to the established tools of knowledge imported from the West. The stage is set for a crushing blow to the collective White ego.
The next few decades should be a lot of fun to watch.
Harvey Mudd Alumnus
Wednesday, December 05, 2001 at 09:16:22 (PST)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|