|
|
|
|
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
© 1996-2009 GoldSea
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. Vote and continue this and related discussions at the new Interactive Area. --Ed.]
(Updated
Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:01:05 PM)
I'm Chinese, I love it here at Columbia. I think getting here was worth every ounce of sweat and hard work I put into getting here.
Ok, let me tell you how much work I put in: NOT A LOT.
IVY schools are not just about accepting the biggest nerds with the biggest glasses possible. Obviously asian families have their priorities a little messed up. Most asian parents just teach their kids to work as hard as they can to get perfect grades. But the sad fact is that in America, the top leaders are almost never the straight A students (George Bush). IVY schools don't want just nerds.
I like your argument, it probably sounds true to everyone who didn't get into the most competitive schools. But I think everything you say in this article is insubstantial and about 10 years outdated. As for 40% legatees, I think that number hardly sounds true, though I don't have the facts to dispute it. As for asian americans being the work horse... that again is totally untrue, every IVY school has its share of stupid AAs.
Chidori
Chidori99@hotmail.com
Sunday, May 12, 2002 at 12:05:21 (PDT)
[We are not trying to advance an "argument" or "position". The article merely raises issues on the minds of AA considering investing in an ivy education. --Ed]
Chris (Poet/Warrior),
Yes, I remember good ol' Willy Wordsworth's great-great....grandnephew. Quite a few of my friends were supervised by him and he used to attend our graduate seminar every once in a while.
I loved Maud-len: that has got to be the quintessential Oxford college in terms of looks and reputation. Did you by any chance know a medievalist by the name of Susan Hitch? What a wonderful woman! She let me use her beautifully appointed office for teaching and had me over for High Table once. Magdalen has got to be one of the most beautiful colleges there. (I will spare St. Catz, hee hee--but I did like the dining hall there!)
I liked the Blackwell's music shop too: I have NEVER seen so many books on music under one roof. Were you there when it was by the King's Arms, or when it moved to the other location by Blackwell's art shop?
Speaking of King's Arms, I loved their generous portions--one of the few places where you can satisfy an American appetite. I liked Ma Baker's pies, but unfortunately, they closed and have got something like Blake's fruit smoothies instead. I think my favourites, though, were the Indian restaurants: the one between the Oxford Union and the Social Sciences building (Chutney's?) was simply divine. (Altho' their buffets are nowhere near as nice as those at Shimla Pink's which used to have great buffets.)BTW, did you ever try their Chinese restaurants like the Opium Den?
I miss England---I've even come to like rainy days!
Asian Dominator,
Point well taken.
I think the problem begins with the fact that American elementary and highschool education already places too much emphasis on an Eurocentric, particularly, Anglo education.
I see no reason why highschools can't teach a year-long world literature class, devoted to European, Asian, African literature, that would fulfill their English requirements. As it is, many highschools already teach American, English, and European literature in their so-called "English" classes. There's no absolutely no reason why they can't come up with an Asian or African literature course, or even a world-literature class.
What is most interesting, however, are the self-contradictory arguments against multicultural education. Most argue that it's either "dumbing down," or that it's too difficult because it's so "foreign." The former like to claim that Western arts and literature are more complex and sophisticated while the latter pretend that students will be "confused." Yet, the former party doesn't acknowledge that "dumbing down" is caused by the fashion in which the subject is taught: Shakespeare, for instance, can be "dumbed down" too and unfortunately has been too many times. The latter party, those who claim it is "too difficult," forget that similar arguments have been made against students studying Shakespeare.
In either case, both parties are just like the idiots who appear every once in a while at Goldsea: those who assume that a pro-Asian statement is necessarily an anti-Caucasian statement. Who says a multicultural education precludes a Western one? And yet, because this connection is made all the time, we begin not only to accept this simplistic reduction, but also to assume that if we're a member of an ethnic minority, we should reject the value of studying Western literature and the humanities. (This is probably why even I feel the necessity as an AA to defend my study of English literature.)
Indeed, the reason why America is having such difficulties in the world--its selfish me-me-me mentality, especially in light of its conflicts with Asia and the middle East, and sometimes even Europe--is because of its silly, puerile, self-centered K-12 education that privileges Anglo cultures at the expense of everything else.
Asian Dominatrix
Sunday, May 12, 2002 at 11:45:12 (PDT)
I was in the entertainment business,and I find that most of these executives are "Ivy-League" educated people. Unfortunately, they are also the most narrow-minded creatures. Asian "ivy-league" educated execs are even worse; they buy into these shitty stereotypes and are pretty much there for the bucks.
How sad.
Narrow Education
Sunday, May 12, 2002 at 03:36:07 (PDT)
Beantown makes you fart:
I hate Boston too! I think they are racist. I visited for about 10 days in the early 1990s to see some friends who were doing a summer study at Harvard. It was not fun. People were rude and the place had a small town (small white town feel). I was quite surprised that a city with Harvard & MIT would be so prejudiced when there must be asians there.
chicky poo
Friday, May 10, 2002 at 22:51:53 (PDT)
What is the point of asking if Ivies are worth it if you're going to include all the top 20, 30, 40 colleges???
It's like asking if going to a good college is worth it. Of course a relative cheap but good quality education is worth it. That's why you want to get an education in the first place, cuzz itz good for you. Who would want to go to a third rate place when they can go to a first rate place instead. Costs about the same. I thought the issue was wether expensive real Ivies are worth it vs the "new powers," as implied from the article itself: "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 article is basically comparing Ivies with other good schools in the West and with newer potentates, which would mean such places as UC Berkley, UCLA, and even Standford and CIT (since they're non-Ivy and in the West), Duke, Northwestern, and a whole bunch of others.
Then we are told that all good schools are Ivies. It doesn't make sense and takes away the point of even bringing up the issue in teh first place. It is like saying, "Are good schools worth it?" My post will probably not even be aired because I am attacking the faulty logic of the web masters. I'll bet that's gonna happen. Yeah
Asian Dominator
Friday, May 10, 2002 at 20:23:37 (PDT)
[You seem ignorant of the fact that there are 4,000 colleges in the U.S. At least 100 would fit most people's notions of being very oldline and prestigious. Even if "ivies" refers to the top 100 old-line colleges (though we clearly indicate "top 20" in the article), we see a meaningful distinction. Now discuss the topic suggested by the article or move on. We aren't interested in wasting more time quibbling over basic definitions with argumentative posters who seem obsessed with the notion that the 8 colleges in the "ivy league" are somehow qualitatively different from all other prestigious institutions. If we were inclined to put people like you in your place, we could name at least a dozen colleges that are far more respected than the bottom half of the "ivy league". --Ed]
I just noticed something. In the article besides the postings, it says "As of 2000, Asian Americans made up 12-19% of the undergrad enrollments of the top-20 ivies."
There are no top-20 Ivies. The Ivies are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, UPenn, Dartmouth, and Columbia. Berkeley is actually ranked 20th. Does Goldsea mean just the top 20 schools or just the Ivies??? which is it???
Asian Dominator
Wednesday, May 08, 2002 at 09:34:05 (PDT)
[This was an issue that has been addressed several times. We use "ivies" in the broader sense of prestigious oldline colleges. For examples of this usage, see The Hidden Ivies: Thirty Colleges of Excellence and The Public Ivies: America's Flagship Public Universities, both by Howard Greene. --Ed]
NEWEST COMMENTS |
EARLIER COMMENTS
|