|
On May 04 2011 11:21 Slow Motion wrote:
In most colleges (expecially large ones) you can find whatever suits your tastes. There are plenty of academic and serious groups and places in so called "party schools," and there are always a bunch of crazy shit and parties going down in the academically high achieving schools. Maybe this is different for small colleges but there should not be a problem with finding fun or study in any medium to large college.
So unless the colleges are tiny, I think the real problem is that some people stereotype Asians and aren't comfortable being a minority and being surrounded by people of a different race. I find it hard to believe that there is any trouble finding Asians who like to party and socialize. The problem is that these kids are intimidated by the unknown and are unwilling to immerse themselves with different people.
I think the street goes both ways. Like other posters and the article says, Asians tend to identify with their ethnicity because they're singled out as being really "nerdy" or "anti-social". This leads to them not being open to people of different groups, which makes other groups not open to Asian students. It's a vicious cycle that I've seen at several campuses around my area. The Asian populations of most schools around here really stick together and rarely socialize with others (obviously there are exceptions, it's not a hard and fast rule). It makes it hard to try to socialize with Asian students because people get the vibe that the Asian students don't want you talking to them, while at the same time many Asians do it simply because they feel like they aren't welcome and white/other students don't want to talk to them.
|
If there's one thing I've learned in my 4 years of college, it's that your 4.0 GPA and your countless hours of studying mean jack shit. Sure, you're smarter and better versed in theoretical concepts than your party-going peers, but connections get jobs. That half-retarded frat boy shotgunning beers on the campus green? Yeah, he's going to have a job after graduation. The socially inept asian (in the sense of the article, not necessarily from asia) will have a much harder time without inroads to top positions.
That said, a 4.0 GPA in a difficult degree is still one hell of an accomplishment, and will most likely lead to a decent job, even if it takes searching for. But then what? How do you expect to move up the corporate ladder without social skills? The highest paying jobs aren't quant jobs, they're customer-facing. No manager in his right mind would put the asian (once again, not literally), no matter how brilliant, in front of valued client when his lack of social skills is apparent. Study skills work as a threshold requirement: beyond a certain level, you're qualified for a certain job. Social skills allow growth beyond that threshold.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On May 04 2011 11:38 contraSol wrote:
If there's one thing I've learned in my 4 years of college, it's that your 4.0 GPA and your countless hours of studying mean jack shit. Sure, you're smarter and better versed in theoretical concepts than your party-going peers, but connections get jobs. That half-retarded frat boy shotgunning beers on the campus green? Yeah, he's going to have a job after graduation. The socially inept asian (in the sense of the article, not necessarily from asia) will have a much harder time without inroads to top positions.
That said, a 4.0 GPA in a difficult degree is still one hell of an accomplishment, and will most likely lead to a decent job, even if it takes searching for. But then what? How do you expect to move up the corporate ladder without social skills? The highest paying jobs aren't quant jobs, they're customer-facing. No manager in his right mind would put the asian (once again, not literally), no matter how brilliant, in front of valued client when his lack of social skills is apparent. Study skills work as a threshold requirement: beyond a certain level, you're qualified for a certain job. Social skills allow growth beyond that threshold.
I'm guessing you don't have a 4.0 in college, right? Because if you did, you'd know it actually opens A LOT of doors for employment. You'd also be surprised that the 4.0 GPA person might actually be a more socially capable person than you are, but can say no to socializing during crucial periods of the year to actually make the grades. Top firms know this because the people there were exactly those type of people - who can juggle everything (life, social, volunteer, job) and still have killer grades. It snot like they are ignorant of the fact that you need social skills...
Regardless, a 4.0 college GPA is going to get you first in line for employment in many fields, especially in this economy. With a 4.0 GPA, it is your job to prove the employer wrong about hiring you. With a 3.0, it is your job to prove the employer is wrong to pass you over. Tell me which is easier.
|
It is very easy to understand if you think from the other side:
I studied in an international school before, the majority of the students actually Chinese that are born in foreign countries and come back due to the career of their parents.
I do not see white students from US and Canada trying to learn Chinese; they love to drink, do drugs, go partying. They are not trying to embrace our nerdy culture where you read manga, play computer games and go watch movies. They do not even like to wear our gender neutral fashion, they are just so all American. Now can you call those white students "not socializing" and not making social network within the "next big superpower" country?
|
I don't really understand why there is much argument in this thread.
There are really three points that are pretty clear, and it's almost the same silly argument that Koreans are better at starcraft because they're Korean. Asians are not better at school because they are Asian. Their family environment and cultural biases stress achievement through merit.
1) Universities don't have one clear goal set such as "Colleges should stress Academia first and foremost". You can find all types of universities just as you can find all types of businesses. What does this mean? It means that some universities will value grades and some will value social atmosphere, some will value a mix and some will value appearances. Find the one that fits what you need from them. Don't expect them to change to suit you.
2) There are pressures in the United States to continue to uphold the "white agenda". This applies to universities as much as anywhere else. I'm a white middle class 25 yr old male. I can tell you that there is nothing my grandparents and parents are more scared of than losing their status quo / 'right to wealth/prosperity/"american dream"' to minorities. I believe in a meritocracy, but there's just no way that people are going to adapt to change well enough to behave in ways that aren't intrinsically valuable.
3) This is a subset of the last point, but the world is shrinking in the sense that travel is much easier. There is more and more access to other cultures and other locations than ever before. Hell, the internet is still a shocking technology to some people/places. There is almost no way to expect a resolution to this type of problem in the short term. In some sense, the United States has always been a 'melting pot' so we "might" be the first country to come to terms with being "fair" rather than protecting the status quo - but most countries in the world will be holding on to their history and their nationalism for dear life. If it became economically viable, I wouldn't expect Japanese schools to admit 70% Indian/Russian students in math programs, give them fair hiring practices, and leadership opportunities in top businesses. We can't expect that in America/Canada/Europe either, in the short term.
|
On May 04 2011 08:39 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 08:16 Keone wrote:
As an Canadian Asian at a "top ivy league" US university...
I'm completely 100% against affirmative action. Instead, universities should change what they're looking for. Instead of basing everything off of grades and SATs, make sure they're well rounded students. Don't just check the APs, don't just check math competitions, but see their extracurricular results as well.
Affirmative action, in my opinion, is a sad and unfortunate reasoning that ultimately has no base in reason. No student in the world should be turned away just because of their race, if their credentials are over what's necessary.
However, the obvious solution is to change the credentials, and I see this as a totally acceptable method. Although academics are important, there are so many more external factors that make a person successful (however you define that) later in life. Interpersonal relationships, teamwork, speaking ability, leadership ability, motivation, personal drive, etc. A lot of US schools, and Canadian universities too, place too much emphasis on pure academics. If I can offer a crappy analogy, you don't become a great basketball player just because you can shoot the ball in the net perfectly from anywhere. You've gotta move, understand teamwork, understand strategy, flow, defense, offense, etc... just like in life, you can't expect to rely on one aspect to pull you through in everything.
Having said all that, it's very possible that even with these credentials changed, asians still could be proportionally high. That's pretty much what happened at my high school. My school was split down the middle, as if a racist deity drew an invisible line down the center of each class. In order to distinguish themselves from the "fobs", white highschool kids would only keep to themselves, talk down on the asian students, and pretty much became the bums, crackheads, and potheads of my school. It's not that they were stupid, but they literally made themselves do badly in school. On the other hand, asians like myself studied our asses off, and actually competed amongst each other, while also engaging in a ton of extracurricular activities because, essentially, other asian students were doing those activities. At the end of the day, (in my school), you've got an asian student who's done well academically and in extracurriculars, and you've got a white student who's failed both and is smoking pot every weekend with his friends. No credentials are going to save that.
Pretty much, what I'm babbling about is that racism is a ridiculous cycle. Racism in our schools causes divisions within students, and those divisions to some extent are why Asians perform better in schools. Of course, some schools have the exact opposite trend, where Asians gang together and become idiots who drive around rice rockets smoking on sidewalks, and the white kids do well and go to good schools. Nothing is strictly polarized in one way, but they are polarized, in one way or another. It just so happens that Asian parents generally really drill their kids to do well academically, (not trying to start a tiger mom argument here), and they end up doing well in high school. College is a different story altogether, not going to go into that.
As for short term, colleges really have to get rid of this affirmative action nonsense. That is blatant racism to the highest degree, no matter how you try and dress that up with excuses. Saying you want a balanced and diverse campus is essentially saying you don't want too much of any one race, which is by its very nature, racist. The problem with your plan is twofold: 1. A majority of students' extracurricular activities are sports in high school, obviously most will nto be able to participate in college. 2. Extracurricular activities have almost no relation to success in school. If Harvard and other Ivies had honest grading curves these people who get improved ranking because of participating in sports they would fail. As it is Harvard fails relatively few people because it (and most ivies) are increasingly intellectually dishonest.
I don't understand these "problems". I never said anything about extracurriculars being directly transferable in college. So what if you stop a sport when you enter college? The skills you learn in being in a sport, endurance, perseverance, teamwork, etc., are what's important and subconsciously stay with you.
And as for "extracurricular activities have almost no relation to success in school"... your point being? Schools aren't trying to accept just the nerdiest of nerds, some of them actually care about the future success of their students. And just being an average nerd with 0 interpersonal skills isn't probably going to get you far. And just in case you didn't know, when you leave college and try and get a job, GPA is important, but what you did outside of school is very important too.
It's probably because you've never been in a legit job interview yet. Once you're there, the only things that matter are the things you don't learn in a classroom. GPA doesn't matter once you've got the first interview. It's those extra skills you pick up outside that matter, and will probably what make you happy and make you a student that contributes something back to the university. Which is essentially what all universities want.
|
When I graduated highschool....most of the students had a certain philosophy: Go to University of Western Ontario Business; if you can't make business, get into any program in Western possible; if you can't do that, go to a community college near Western so you can party with them....
Not the greatest priorities if you ask me....
|
On May 04 2011 11:38 contraSol wrote:
If there's one thing I've learned in my 4 years of college, it's that your 4.0 GPA and your countless hours of studying mean jack shit. Sure, you're smarter and better versed in theoretical concepts than your party-going peers, but connections get jobs. That half-retarded frat boy shotgunning beers on the campus green? Yeah, he's going to have a job after graduation. The socially inept asian (in the sense of the article, not necessarily from asia) will have a much harder time without inroads to top positions.
That said, a 4.0 GPA in a difficult degree is still one hell of an accomplishment, and will most likely lead to a decent job, even if it takes searching for. But then what? How do you expect to move up the corporate ladder without social skills? The highest paying jobs aren't quant jobs, they're customer-facing. No manager in his right mind would put the asian (once again, not literally), no matter how brilliant, in front of valued client when his lack of social skills is apparent. Study skills work as a threshold requirement: beyond a certain level, you're qualified for a certain job. Social skills allow growth beyond that threshold.
I'm curious as to what "top positions" and "customer-facing" jobs you're referring to (i.e. what kind of work). There aren't a ton of generic office/business/"customer-facing" positions out there just waiting to be filled by the legions of university graduates with degrees in stuff like philosophy, women's studies, sociology, psychology, English, geography, anthropology, etc. Undergrad for most people (for most fields of study) is only a stepping-stone to grad school/medical school/law school etc -- all of which require good marks. The last time I checked the cut-off for med school here was something like a 4.0 GPA.
Regardless of how socially adept you are, you're unlikely to get any job with an undergraduate degree alone unless you're in engineering, computer science, actuarial science or some other of the small number of other technical fields (NB: that hire people based on their academic qualifications with little regard to social skills). So neither your caricaturist beer-swilling frat boy or socially inept Asian would be likely to get any job at all if they were studying humanities or social sciences or one of the many completely practically useless fields (from an employment perspective)--unless they're using their high GPA to go to grad/med school etc.
|
i read the article.
Can somebody please explain to me what the problem is?
The only 'problem' i got from it is that some mother said "immigrants stole my son's spot in whatever university"
....i'm sorry WHAT!? LOL
Canada is a country made of immigrants. There are several universities and the reason why they 'stole' your son's spot is because another student had a higher average than your son.
Who the hell cares if hes asian, mexican, black, or alien, they performed better in high school
|
In America, the discrimination is at times worse - just not as open or well versed.
|
On May 04 2011 11:38 contraSol wrote:
If there's one thing I've learned in my 4 years of college, it's that your 4.0 GPA and your countless hours of studying mean jack shit. Sure, you're smarter and better versed in theoretical concepts than your party-going peers, but connections get jobs. That half-retarded frat boy shotgunning beers on the campus green? Yeah, he's going to have a job after graduation. The socially inept asian (in the sense of the article, not necessarily from asia) will have a much harder time without inroads to top positions.
That said, a 4.0 GPA in a difficult degree is still one hell of an accomplishment, and will most likely lead to a decent job, even if it takes searching for. But then what? How do you expect to move up the corporate ladder without social skills? The highest paying jobs aren't quant jobs, they're customer-facing. No manager in his right mind would put the asian (once again, not literally), no matter how brilliant, in front of valued client when his lack of social skills is apparent. Study skills work as a threshold requirement: beyond a certain level, you're qualified for a certain job. Social skills allow growth beyond that threshold.
This entire post reeks of the implication that working hard and getting a 4.0 GPA means a lack of social skills, which is just plain stupid. Have you ever even been to college (obviously, you have, but that makes your post seem even more ignorant in that you've had first-hand experience yet you're still so wrong) and interacted with top-performing peers? They are perfectly sociable people, who simply know how to buckle down and study/work hard when the situation calls for it. Sounds like you were one of those people who didn't do well in school and rationalized your lacking GPA by projecting some fallacious notion of social incompetence upon those who get good grades. Psh.
|
On May 04 2011 12:25 Zedders wrote:
i read the article.
Can somebody please explain to me what the problem is?
The only 'problem' i got from it is that some mother said "immigrants stole my son's spot in whatever university"
....i'm sorry WHAT!? LOL
Canada is a country made of immigrants. There are several universities and the reason why they 'stole' your son's spot is because another student had a higher average than your son.
Who the hell cares if hes asian, mexican, black, or alien, they performed better in high school
It isn't "immigrants stole my university spot". A majority of the university students are residents or citizens. The non-issue that Macleans is raising is that certain universities have a disproportionate amount of Chinese students. For example, Toronto is about 18% Chinese, yet over 30% of the undegraduate students in University of Toronto are of Chinese ethnicity. Canadian university admissions are based on meritocracy, your race is totally irrelevant to your admissions, which is the way it should be. All the right people are going into university, high marks and good extra-curriculars, it just so happens that they are Chinese.
|
This "Too Asian" issue applies to Asian universities too. Strictly speaking, it's more of "Too PRC or Indian".
Singapore's universities are being overwhelmed by large groups of South Asian and China-Chinese students, especially in the Engineering and Science colleges. Individually they are not very different from the local Singaporeans, but when they get together in a group (which is often) they tend to form cultural ghettos or become obnoxious.
Of course, the lack of integration can also be traced to the lack of willingness of local Singaporeans to interact with the foreign students; regardless though, the clash of cultures combined with the perceived academic superiority of the foreign students does raise tensions.
|
Here's my two cents.
I am graduating from high school this year, and have been accepted into the University of British Columbia (henceforth known as UBC).
I am also Chinese.
I'm am in no way saying I have a 4.0GPA or anything, but your average does have to pretty damn high in order to have even a decent chance of getting into UBC. Sure I worked my ass off for it, but I still have time to socialize and do stuff out of school. I even got my Pilot's License recently.
But the point I want to stress is that it doesn't matter what race you are, put the effort into your work and results will show.
And for the record, I emigrated to Canada from England.
|
I fail to see how few posters established that solid GPA must be accompanied by awful social skills and having a sub-par GPA means that you are a social butterfly -_-.
|
...That's why I didn't bother applying 
Representing York for CSL next year...bitches :D
Oh, and good luck to the Asians trying to get a job at UofT. Most companies that come on campus to hire don't even go there anymore, because of so many Asian students who excel in everything but communicating in English. According to several friends who graduated, UofT is the nearly the worst choice for anything wishing to go to school in Toronto. You'd have a better chance in Seneca.
|
Alright this is a long-ass thread and everyone seems to be saying similar things over and over.
Here is what I understand is the general consensus
1) Generalisations don’t apply to everybody.
Obvious but this article and the comments tend to lump all “Asians” as those that work hard to get into a great University and get amazing grades etc. Obviously there will be variance in the population and the author states one of the main reasons for the discrepancy, namely selective immigration.
2) Universities should accept based on academic merit
This one is more questionable. As discussed by
On November 12 2010 15:49 Plutonium wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm going to make a few postulations:
a) The main desire an institute of higher learning is not just to educate, but to have graduates who become extraordinary figures in society, so that the reputation of the university is improved by their association with these people.
The primary motivation of an admittance office is to identify the people who have the innate talent to become the movers and shakers of society.
b) Historically, the main method that has been used to identify those with the potential to become an extraordinary figure is through the traditional admittance process - standardized test scores, past academic performance, and analysis of "intangibles" that translate into displays of independent thought and leadership qualities.
c) Race, ethnicity, or gender do not equate with the innate potential to become an extraordinary figure. All people are equally likely to possess the potential to become an extraordinary figure.
d) This identification process has been so thoroughly mapped out that parents of children who desire to see them admitted into top-flight universities push their children into "emulating" this potential, whether or not the child may or may not possess the innate desire or abilities of an extraordinary individual.
e) Asian cultures traditionally hold certain values higher than Western Cultures, and Western Cultures traditionally hold certain values higher than Asian cultures.
f) The values of Asian cultures contribute to a systematic increase in "measured" potential among children raised with those values using traditional methods of identification - standardized tests, academic GPA, and "intangibles" which supposedly reflect independent thought and leadership.
g) This systematic increase in measured potential to become an extraordinary figure does not correlate with actual potential to become an extraordinary figure. (see postulate c)
f) Therefore, the measurement system is flawed.
h) A new system of measurement being yet unproven or unfeasible due to the scale of university education, admissions officers must attempt to "correct" for this error, or suffer reduced efficiency in identifying future extraordinary figures.
If we assume that Universities are supposed to breed people graduates with outstanding academic capability then the merit system works. If social skills need to be included then perhaps a different system needs to be worked out.
3) People get angry when race is mentioned.
4) Minorities tend to stick together.
This may be obvious but of course it doesn’t only apply to Asians. Why is it that there are international schools in Asian countries? So the ex-pats can send their kids to a school with similar values, language etc to the ones back home.
5) The “Asian” students tend to do “better” than the non-Asian students.
I’m not sure if there are stats to back this up but it seems to be perception of people. Again, see point 1. If we accept this there are questions regarding the influence of culture, immigration, entry policies etc. There is no simple answer to this. People seem to be in agreement that this isn’t a bad thing but is the result of the skew on people entering University and their perceived work habits.
These points are what seem to stick out to me from what has been discussed. I want to raise some more interesting questions.
If we assume that the “Asian” students are being over-represented in Universities. If we take the premise of this article and follow it through that Asians will get better grades because they work harder. That they tend to stick within their groupings, what does this actually mean?
Education is correlated with higher earnings
If Asians are over-represented at Universities will they be earning more in future years?
Population density is highest in the East(129.93 inhabitants/km squared)
Population growth is high in the East (see above link)
Economic growth has been rapid in the East
To me the above data shows that there are relatively larger numbers of wealthy people from an Asian background than there has been previously. It would be expected that the number of international students applying to well known universities would also increase in line with the above. This is somewhat born out by the growth in Australian university acceptances.
Growth in International Student Acceptances at Australian Universities
I know it is a media release but the figures still stand. A 21.5% increase is nothing to sneeze at. As discussed above this has something to do with the increased relationships between the west and the east in general.
So what am I getting at?
From my understanding we have a large growing population that is increasing in wealth and is looking to send their students to international Universities. This means that there is an over-representation of Asian students at Universities. Tertiary education is correlated with greater income. Asian students have a reputation for getting good grades.
The attitude this article represents seems to be the last bastion of a failing elite. It is clear that now and in the future there will be more Asian achievers both at University and in the general work environment in the Western world.
If minorities are not integrated this may lead to some social conflicts in the future. University is the ideal place to learn how to integrate. This is the problem that I think the article blindly misses. Regardless of the merit question, or validity of the reputation, if Asian students do not integrate into the local culture, social division will be manifest.
This is not a one-way street. Societies embrace the economic benefits of immigrants but lose out if they fail to integrate minorities. If Universities gain a reputation for accepting particular minorities this is a sign of a society that is unwilling to accept that the cultural fabric is changing. They should gain reputation for what they provide, not who they accept. As Chill put it
On November 11 2010 12:02 Chill wrote:Being from Ontario, this article is exactly the thought process I went through except it wasn't strictly "Asian". Waterloo and UofT have a fantastic academic reputation and a reputation of zero social life. McGill and Queens are slightly lower in academics but have a way better social reputation. I didn't even consider Waterloo or UofT (despite applying and not getting in!). + Show Spoiler +
It's an important part of university, but I'm not sure what could be done to fix it.
Contrary to what the above posters think, I felt what I learned of importance at university was exactly 50% academic and 50% social. I've drawn on both skillsets equally in my career.
So the question I want to raise is how do we integrate minorities into our culture at University?
It is clear from the comments above me that both “sides” of this debate have much to learn from each other. How do we get that moving?
As for me, I have always been the odd one out. I have sort out people from different backgrounds because I truly believe that is the best way to enrich your learning experience. Hell it is worth it just for the food.
Sorry for the essay but sometimes complicated things require a complicated answer.
|
I live in Canada and am a student at the University of Waterloo, and I've seen this happen in several generations.
+ Show Spoiler +Where I live there is a massive Italian community, and everyone sticks together because that is what they are familiar with. My grandmother lived in Canada for 60 years and spoke very poor English. Just the other day I saw a man in traffic court unable to speak to the judge without an interpreter, but I'll bet he came over here from Italy more than 50 years go. This is a very common thing.
The same thing is happening with the Chinese. They come over here in large groups and stick together, speaking their own language and dealing with their own people because that is what they are familiar with and it is easier for them. It is understandable but damaging to society. The difference now is that the Italians that came were mostly tradespeople, but the Chinese that are coming are skilled workers with hardworking children who are taking up valuable positions at universities and in the workplace.
The main problem with society now is that it is so diversity focused that it is downright racist. Universities will give preference to 'visible minority' (non-white) students to show that they are diverse and accepting of everyone. So, Asian students fill the universities and thus drive the culture in less-friendly directions because of the visual and cultural segregation between students. This also happens in the workplace.
So what's the main problem? Well: Asian culture and Western culture do not mix. Asians come from overpopulated countries where there are so many people vying for so little opportunity that if you don't work your absolute hardest and screw a few people along the way, then you will be screwed yourself. So they come over and apply the same work ethic in a culture where that is much more rare, thus out-competing the locals for opportunities both to work and get into university.
The universities with the best reputations will go first because they care most about academic standing, research achievements accredited to their people, and work achievements accredited to their people. This is why Waterloo and UofT are packed with Asians. Lesser schools like Brock, Western, and York don't suffer as much, but go to their business schools and it's the same thing all over again.
You can't repair this - no one will try to get along beyond maintaining general civility. People like to stick with the familiar too much for this to change. + Show Spoiler +Say you walk into a room and there are two cliques of people standing and talking to each other; one is your race and the other is... I dunno... Sikh. Regardless of your feelings towards Sikhs, would you not approach the group of people who look like you every single time? Barring if anyone looked particularly sketchy, I would.
P.S.: If you need more evidence: Waterloo has the best CSL (Starcraft) team in North America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
