|
|
|
|
|
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 ivies.
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, 06:01:12 PM)
I am an Indian studdying in USA. It is true that Indians, Chinese and asians in general tend to do better in standardised tests. However it would be unfair to attribute it alone to the intelligence and raise the cry of discrimination. There is a reason why success in standardised tests alone does not translate into Einstein or Feynman in future life. Assuming Sternberg's theory on intelligence, there are roughly two components of intelligence- analytical and creative. Since I know about Indians very well, it is my opinion that Indians despite being high on analytical abilities are not above average as far as creative skills are concerned. The reason is the schooling system of India and the social environment is not very conducive to lateral thinking. While analytical abilities are cherished and encouraged in schools of India, creativity is either ignored or worse still, discouraged. Because of my own interest in this field, I went through the textbooks used in typical American schools, the kind of questions asked and the method of instruction. I was astonished to find that a very high emphasis is placed on being creative. What I say about Indian schooling system may be true about China too. So instead of decrying Americans, we should acknowledge that we may actually be lower on creative aspect of intelligence and do something to develop it. Perhaps that is why we see so less number of asians getting Noble Prize or Field Medal.
Akash
Thursday, January 24, 2002 at 08:48:01 (PST)
"do you or do not you want admissions based on solely GPA and SAT?"
All I want consistency. You can either admit students based on test scores alone, or you can have both legacy and AA. No problem with me. I do not want a system rigged in favor of whites. If we abolish AA and just leave legacy, it would only benefit whites. Thernstroms are professors at Harvard. They want to leave legacy alone and abolish AA...sounds like professors with klan robes on.
"No I do not know who those people are? What’s your point? Are you saying that your stance coincides with theirs or are you saying this think tank is the messiah? I really have no idea, clue me in."
See the next post.
"Where am I talking about admitting people based on their race?"
Ditto
"What I do want to do is get people off this US News being the bible crap. Let me just
ask you to think about something."
Do not have to think about anything. Professor Akerlof of the Econ Department won the Nobel Prize in October. Berkeley and Harvard both have had its high share of Nobel laureates. So no need to put down Berkeley.
"I haven’t heard of a good ole Asian boy network in California but I’ll let you know if I
do. Seriously though, you think that there could be a good ole boy network at Oracle.
Credible tech companies are notorious for being meritocracies."
My apologies for you being Asian
"The good ole boy network had nothing to do with the collapse of Enron. The good ole
boy network does not lead to the collapse of a company and there are
corporations(such as investment banks) that make heaps of money while hirining out of
the good ole boys network. However, that practice would work at a tech company.
Enron’s collapse is a result of greed and fraud."
The Good ole boy's network lets you sell your share when the company is in trouble, cheat investors and employees and eventually bankrupt them...that is what happened at Enron. The company collapse was a result of managerial incest. Most of the CEOs were from East Texas and had the arrogance of "know it all" and decided to deal with India and Brazil without knowing much about the country.
"From the homepage, “racial bias in ivy admissions?”
Its obviously biased towards “white culture”, but they don’t discriminate."
Consequences are the same. But, you are right about one profession. Public University law schools discriminate more than private schoools. Because the public law schools such as the ones in Louisiana and Alabama are geared to produce AGs, DAs Sheriffs, politicians and other low lives for the state concerned, who are interested more in their careers and elections than helping the public...whereas the private school such as Harvard is relatively more merit based.
Asian American Male
Thursday, January 24, 2002 at 05:35:17 (PST)
to T.H. Lien, ivyprep, etc.
All your discussion about white/asian test scores and admissions stats are part of urban legend. I should know. I've just been through the college admissions process. I got a 1600, 800s on SAT II's, got into Harvard early. That doesn't change the fact though that I've seen a lot of the so-called "myths" of college admissions (particularly Ivy League) proven wrong in my experience this year, and it's obvious to me at least that all your relentless speculating (even among all you prep and Harvard alums) does not help any.
FYI ivyprep, it's "blanket" statement, not "blanketing." And that's exactly what you do in your posts, despite all your blatant criticism and bs of other people's thoughts. So what if people react strongly to you and others like Math Guy? I get enraged too when I think about all the undercover racism against Asians in America, particularly in higher education. But petty infighting like what you're perpetuating does not help matters for us or any other minority group in the U.S.
Look: I've seen so many 1600s and 1590s rejected/deferred from Harvard, and no they were not all Asian. I've seen plenty of damn-ugly AF's there and all around the Ivy League, so I don't get where you get those those wack conspiracy theories from. I've seen white legacies shot down, many of them quite brilliant and deserving of all of Harvard's resources. And, it's true, test scores are important and the interview is vastly overrated. But face the facts. College admissions are unfair. Life is unfair. Get over it and off your ass and try to do something constructive about it, instead of all this useless bitching and moaning.
What you have to remember is that with any institution, what makes that institution "great" or "famous" is the caliber of the people in that institution. Ultimately, if it seems like Yale or Harvard or wherever are screwing the Asians, then go somewhere else and prove them wrong. Be successful and increase Asian influence in the Ivies by being proactive.
Also, I have to say this: whoever says that prep school kids work 3x harder than public school kids is shitting himself (ahem). Are you kidding me? You're saying kids at Andover, Exeter, Choate etc. work harder than kids at Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, etc. That's just not true. Those who want/are willing to work hard anywhere. It doesn't matter what/where your high school is. High school is not like college. The majority of the "smartest" students do NOT all go to prep/private schools. Many go to public schools, whether they be selective city public or local suburban public. The average of the student body at any of those private/prep schools might be greater than that of the average public school student body, but all in all the best public school students are more than the equal of their private/prep counterparts, and we work hard enough to prove that without anymore of that bs.
hs am
Wednesday, January 23, 2002 at 20:06:23 (PST)
That post on elitism and Oxford was from
Asian Dominatrix
Wednesday, January 23, 2002 at 16:31:15 (PST)
dragonfly,
On the AF/WM board, you mentioned my "elitism and class snobbery" before adding:
"a pedigree does not confer intellectual ability on anyone."
"hard work and desire can be rewarded, not just an exclusive birthright."
I presume you're referring to my mentioning Oxford when you note "pedigree." It could certainly NOT refer to my social status since I'm a daughter of a professor, grew up in the Bronx and Chicago suburbs, and attended to public schools until college. Yeah, right, class snobbery.
Speaking of elitism, public and private education could do with a little more of it--I mean in the proper sense of higher educational standards. We all know that honors class in HS are a joke: they should be the standard, not the high level. I remember being bored silly in elementary school as teachers taught the same stuff year after year in many subjects: multiplication in 3rd grade, more multiplication in 4th grade--all until 8th grade. I got told I was "extremely talented" and got put in advanced math even tho' I'm no math genius. Same for English. If honors classes were so mind-numbingly easy, how challenging could "standard classes" be? No wonder even college graduates can't master some of the most basic arithmetic and writing skills! A college degree from some colleges is sometimes barely more than a degree from a good HS. Or a HS degree from days gone by. Literacy now means you can spell your name as far as I see it.
When one GRADUATES from a highly selective public and/or private university, one has every reason to be proud of his/her attainments. There is nothing "snobby" or "elitist" about this. Many of these schools DO work you harder. If you're in English, for instance, a less selective third-tier university/college might have you study 5 novels in a 13 week period as opposed to 12 at a more selective first-tier one. With more writing assignments to go along with it all.
I remember overhearing about an undergrad at Oxford talking about one of her friends who decided to transfer to an "easier" but still highly respectable university in the UK. She was surprised to see that they were still covering in the second year what she had already learned in the first year of her studies at Oxford.
But more to the point, many external examiners who grade public exams for Oxford are always wanting to give higher scores but our university always says no. (The highest score they will give out of a 100 on an English exam, for instance, is an 80, but many external ones want to give an 84 or 5.) Oxford and Cambridge undergrads in also face a barrage of exams in their third year (the ones which determine whether they leave the university with a 1, 2.1, 2.2.,3 or fail) which many US scholars compare to their own doctoral examinations. And BTW, only undergrads scoring with a 1 are permitted to go on for graduate study at Oxford or Cambridge.
Now, not everyone graduating from an elite college is brilliant or even barely talented. (Just look at Dubya with a MBA from Harvard!) But the vast majority of us have earned our "bragging rights." If you resent it, that's just your own problem.
Asian
Wednesday, January 23, 2002 at 16:29:55 (PST)
o.k i am going to offer a canadian perspective here on this ivy league issue.....i'm from Toronto, ontario..and am going to university in the fall...our university education system, is differetn then that of the states, for many reason
number 1, we don't have privately funded universities(but might soon)....so all schools are regulated by tution caps placed by the gov't
- this allows for everyone a shot to go to university regardless of financial status
- but on the other hand, our schools tend to be larger, and becuase schools cannot accpet private funds, there is not enough money for such things as research as many u.s universities are noted for
- we do not have to tkae any standardized tests(sats) to get into university(good or bad thing, depending) and schools therefore only look at high school marks in the last year(OAC-gr.13) or anyones before that if u need prequsities for a certain program
- no interviews or personal reccomendation are needed or extra-curricualr activites unless u are applying for a major scholarship or if u are competing for spots in health sciences or engineering programs
- medical and law school though is on the verge of privitzation..... about 20,000 tuition
- undergrad tuition in ontario, is about 4,000 depending on the school it will vary slightly and province
- residence is about 8,000-9,000, so altogether university costs are about 15,000
- despite what u americans might think of our system, many of our schools carry as much weight as many of your top state schools and even some like Queens, University of Toronto, Mcgill and UBC are comparable to an ivy league education....
- personally although i feel that privtization of universites creates class divisions, i favour it happening in ontario, so that such universities as Mcgill can offer more in every apsect like an ivy league school... but then again the fear in canada is that the whole university system might become a huge corporation market as in the u.s. but all in all i love our universities, but admire your presitigious schools
- oh yeah a lot of the prestige universties in canada are comprised by a majority of asians, especially in enginerring, and microsoft recurits a lot of asians from the university of waterloo(similiar to mit)..... as in the states a lot of brillaint asians in the top schools here
- another point the universities here have by far much better race realtions in canada, thank god, no offense but your country, in terms of racial harmonization is screwd up bad, sure we have our problems but we deal with them a lot better.... newayz if u have more question feel free to ask
canadian chic
canadian chic
Wednesday, January 23, 2002 at 11:55:43 (PST)
ivyprep,
Since you feel you have a grasp of the college admission situation. What reasoning behind the higher GPA and SAT scores for the Asian population as oppose to the white population for admittance to the same colleges instituation? It is not like we enjoy going to cram schools in America.
On the other end why can't asian qualify for affirmative action? There are poor, stupid asians in this country also.
So if the country not going let asian qualify as a minority in college. Then treat us like whites. But they don't do that either. They treat us as brainiacs, just to be on equal footing in college.
No matter how you cut it when it comes to colleges asians get the short end of the stick in this country.
AC dropout
Wednesday, January 23, 2002 at 11:00:41 (PST)
ivyprep,
You said:
"Just because Harvard rejects say 70% of Asians with 1420's and 4.3 and only 40% of whites with 1420's and 4.3 [something is missing here; this phrase doesn't make sense] it does not mean there is any discrimination going on. If you want to make generaliszations, sure Asians can put up the numbers, but whites tend to do more of the Extra-C's that privates look at."
I think you're making quite a few generalizations yourself. Why are you assuming that Asians don't have as many extra-C's? Many of them win prizes in performance (i.e., piano, violin), are involved in student government and sports. Sometimes all three. I have met many Asians with all of these qualifications plus the stellar grades who were not able to get into the Ivies. And I know enough whites with pissy scores and achievements who probably would not have been able to get in if they were Asian--you know, the morons with 1300 on their SATs and are top 10% of their class--with no prizes or anything else to their name. While you cannot assume discrimination is at work in all cases, you cannot dismiss it blithely either.
And about the public vs. private highschools. Some public HS are at least as good as private ones, although naturally they tend to be located in wealthier (white) neighborhoods. (I'm thinking of the New Trier HS in the north shore of Chicago.) Personally, if I were an admissions officer, I'd prefer to pick someone with higher scores from a school in a less affluent neighborhood.
Asian Dominatrix
Wednesday, January 23, 2002 at 10:14:04 (PST)
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|