a**e
发帖数: 8800 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
发信人: maoqiumina (mqmn), 信区: WaterWorld
标 题: 转载纽约时报：亚裔孩子聪明反被聪明误
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Dec 21 11:09:05 2012, 美东)
一个白人有娃同事发来给我看，沮丧无语。谨此献给各位聪明过头的华人民主党们，末
日过后请继续折腾：
Asians: Too Smart for Their Own Good?
AT the end of this month, high school seniors will submit their college
applications and begin waiting to hear where they will spend the next four
years of their lives. More than they might realize, the outcome will depend
on race. If you are Asian, your chances of getting into the most selective
colleges and universities will almost certainly be lower than if you are
white.
Asian-Americans constitute 5.6 percent of the nation’s population but 12 to
18 percent of the student body at Ivy League schools. But if judged on
their merits — grades, test scores, academic honors and extracurricular
activities — Asian-Americans are underrepresented at these schools.
Consider that Asians make up anywhere from 40 to 70 percent of the student
population at top public high schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science in
New York City, Lowell in San Francisco and Thomas Jefferson in Alexandria,
Va., where admissions are largely based on exams and grades.
In a 2009 study of more than 9,000 students who applied to selective
universities, the sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton
Radford found that white students were three times more likely to be
admitted than Asians with the same academic record.
Sound familiar? In the 1920s, as high-achieving Jews began to compete with
WASP prep schoolers, Ivy League schools started asking about family
background and sought vague qualities like “character,” “vigor,” “
manliness” and “leadership” to cap Jewish enrollment. These unofficial
Jewish quotas weren’t lifted until the early 1960s, as the sociologist
Jerome Karabel found in his 2005 history of admissions practices at Harvard,
Yale and Princeton.
In the 1920s, people asked: will Harvard still be Harvard with so many Jews?
Today we ask: will Harvard still be Harvard with so many Asians? Yale’s
student population is 58 percent white and 18 percent Asian. Would it be
such a calamity if those numbers were reversed?
As the journalist Daniel Golden revealed in his 2006 book “The Price of
Admission,” far more attention has been devoted to race-conscious
affirmative action at public universities (which the Supreme Court has
scaled back and might soon eliminate altogether) than to the special
preferences elite universities afford to the children of (overwhelmingly
white) donors and alumni.
For middle-class and affluent whites, overachieving Asian-Americans pose
thorny questions about privilege and power, merit and opportunity. Some
white parents have reportedly shied away from selective public schools that
have become “too Asian,” fearing that their children will be outmatched.
Many whites who can afford it flock to private schools that promote “
progressive” educational philosophies, don’t “teach to the test” and
offer programs in art and music (but not “Asian instruments,” like piano
and violin). At some of these top-tier private schools, too, Asian kids find
it hard to get in.
At highly selective colleges, the quotas are implicit, but very real. So are
the psychological consequences. At Northwestern, Asian-American students
tell me that they feel ashamed of their identity — that they feel viewed as
a faceless bunch of geeks and virtuosos. When they succeed, their peers
chalk it up to “being Asian.” They are too smart and hard-working for
their own good.
Since the 1965 overhaul of immigration law, the United States has lured
millions of highly educated, ambitious immigrants from places like Taiwan,
South Korea and India. We welcomed these immigrants precisely because they
outperformed and overachieved. Yet now we are stigmatizing their children
for inheriting their parents’ work ethic and faith in a good education. How
self-defeating.
To be clear, I do not seek to perpetuate the “model minority” myth —
Asian-Americans are a diverse group, including undocumented restaurant
workers and resettled refugees as well as the more familiar doctors and
engineers. Nor do I endorse the law professor Amy Chua’s pernicious “Tiger
Mother” stereotype, which has set back Asian kids by attributing their
successes to overzealous (and even pathological) parenting rather than
individual effort.
Some educators, parents and students worry that if admissions are based
purely on academic merit, selective universities will be dominated by whites
and Asians and admit few blacks and Latinos, as a result of socioeconomic
factors and an enduring test-score gap. We still need affirmative action for
underrepresented groups, including blacks, Latinos, American Indians and
Southeast Asian Americans and low-income students of all backgrounds.
But for white and Asian middle- and upper-income kids, the playing field
should be equal. It is noteworthy that many high-achieving kids at selective
public magnet schools are children of working-class immigrants, not well-
educated professionals. Surnames like Kim, Singh and Wong should not trigger
special scrutiny.
We want to fill our top universities with students of exceptional and wide-
ranging talent, not just stellar test takers. But what worries me is the
application of criteria like “individuality” and “uniqueness,”
subjectively and unfairly, to the detriment of Asians, as happened to Jewish
applicants in the past. I suspect that in too many college admissions
offices, a white Intel Science Talent Search finalist who is a valedictorian
and the concertmaster of her high school orchestra would stand out as
exceptional, while an Asian-American with the same résumé (and
socioeconomic background) would not.
The way we treat these children will influence the America we become. If our
most renowned schools set implicit quotas for high-achieving Asian-
Americans, we are sending a message to all students that hard work and good
grades may be a fool’s errand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/asians-too-smart-for- | w******t
发帖数: 16937 | 2 把人分成亚裔或者非裔......
是属于不平等吗？
depend
【在 a**e 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
: 发信人: maoqiumina (mqmn), 信区: WaterWorld
: 标 题: 转载纽约时报：亚裔孩子聪明反被聪明误
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Dec 21 11:09:05 2012, 美东)
: 一个白人有娃同事发来给我看，沮丧无语。谨此献给各位聪明过头的华人民主党们，末
: 日过后请继续折腾：
: Asians: Too Smart for Their Own Good?
: AT the end of this month, high school seniors will submit their college
: applications and begin waiting to hear where they will spend the next four
: years of their lives. More than they might realize, the outcome will depend
| W******e
发帖数: 3319 | 3 在美国白人打压亚裔，墨黑仇视亚裔， 亚裔太可怜了。 还有亚裔在文科有关的工作很
难成功， 都被挤到理工科。 我看不到亚裔的光明。
depend
【在 a**e 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
: 发信人: maoqiumina (mqmn), 信区: WaterWorld
: 标 题: 转载纽约时报：亚裔孩子聪明反被聪明误
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Dec 21 11:09:05 2012, 美东)
: 一个白人有娃同事发来给我看，沮丧无语。谨此献给各位聪明过头的华人民主党们，末
: 日过后请继续折腾：
: Asians: Too Smart for Their Own Good?
: AT the end of this month, high school seniors will submit their college
: applications and begin waiting to hear where they will spend the next four
: years of their lives. More than they might realize, the outcome will depend
| d*****n
发帖数: 3084 | 4 老中如果都不追捧Ivy，念个普通体面大学就很开心的话，那么自己会轻松多了，孩子
也轻松多了，将来成功的可能性也大多了。
各州的公立不是也很好吗，还省钱。
其实呢，少花点钱在教育上，剩下的钱可以做很多事情啊，给孩子们点钱到处旅游啊，
泡妞啊。自己掏钱做公益也可以啊。说到底，老中太自私，少数这样还有便宜占，都这
样了，自然就没有没有机会了。而且，本来名校是培养治国精英和学术精英的，前者在
华人如此小基数的情况下是不可能的，后者天赋是主要的，兴趣更重要，比起来美国人
在学术上并不弱。
人生来自身条件是不平等的，譬如，还有相貌，就算念了常青藤，做了医生，可是长的
丑，那给我做女婿我都不要。孩子聪明念普通学校更出类拔萃啊，将来喜欢做学问一样
可以去名校。
其实呢，老中真的聪明吗？我不觉得，至少几代之后的ABC看不出比美国人聪明。老中
体力也不行，真正做学问，做工作，其实到后来，精力比智力更重要。
倒是也有一个办法，不过很多人要骂我。那就是鼓励下一代跟美国人通婚，大多数美国
人自己也是有欧洲各国印第安黑人等血缘的。长远看，华人还是要融入美国的，包括血
统上。早期因为排华所以不行。这样趁着前几代ABC还能刻苦读书能混个好饭碗的时候
，找个好点的美国媳妇女婿，这样将来就算美国总统姓王，美国人看他的模样也觉得是
自己人。这是华裔唯一的出路，也是美国人他们自己的道路。
我只是坐而论道，我不会干涉我的孩子们的婚姻，不过漂亮聪明永远是winner才配婚嫁
的，我还是得push孩子们一下的，不过是小小地。
【在 W******e 的大作中提到】
: 在美国白人打压亚裔，墨黑仇视亚裔， 亚裔太可怜了。 还有亚裔在文科有关的工作很
: 难成功， 都被挤到理工科。 我看不到亚裔的光明。
:
: depend
| z********i
发帖数: 568 | 5 不知道是不是第一代华人习惯于区适应外在的标准，比如说各种考试，用各种分数，奖
励来衡量自己成功与否。
但事实是，不论在中国美国，只是适应外在标准的人好像都很难有突出的表现或成功，
也很少影响别人。美国学校强调的leadership，还是很有道理的：领导别人，才有可能
做出较大的成就。
希望换人能更diverse一些，能建立更好的network。单打独斗是费力不讨好的。比如说
，律师吧。不少律师是有背景的，有的家人是法官，有的家人是律师。一穷二白当上律
师，需要多付出很多。
depend
【在 a**e 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
: 发信人: maoqiumina (mqmn), 信区: WaterWorld
: 标 题: 转载纽约时报：亚裔孩子聪明反被聪明误
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Dec 21 11:09:05 2012, 美东)
: 一个白人有娃同事发来给我看，沮丧无语。谨此献给各位聪明过头的华人民主党们，末
: 日过后请继续折腾：
: Asians: Too Smart for Their Own Good?
: AT the end of this month, high school seniors will submit their college
: applications and begin waiting to hear where they will spend the next four
: years of their lives. More than they might realize, the outcome will depend
| a******t
发帖数: 2944 | 6 没有理解LZ，这篇文章不是质疑这种schools set implicit quotas for high-
achieving Asian-Americans吗？怎么看了会沮丧。
且原文标题是个反问句，中译文标题没有问号之后意思彻底变了，到底LZ想表达个什么
观点？ | a****l
发帖数: 8211 | 7 一看就知道是某个华人写得自恨的文章，果然作者姓Chen.
depend
【在 a**e 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 WaterWorld 讨论区 】
: 发信人: maoqiumina (mqmn), 信区: WaterWorld
: 标 题: 转载纽约时报：亚裔孩子聪明反被聪明误
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Dec 21 11:09:05 2012, 美东)
: 一个白人有娃同事发来给我看，沮丧无语。谨此献给各位聪明过头的华人民主党们，末
: 日过后请继续折腾：
: Asians: Too Smart for Their Own Good?
: AT the end of this month, high school seniors will submit their college
: applications and begin waiting to hear where they will spend the next four
: years of their lives. More than they might realize, the outcome will depend
| i******m
发帖数: 2591 | 8 根本不是牙一学生的问题
而是媒体一贯的妖魔化
始终带着有色眼睛来衡量牙一的成就 | p********5
发帖数: 7433 | 9 我阿姨说，他们高中，前几名的，如果是白人，选州立，如果是华人，选名校。
【在 d*****n 的大作中提到】
: 老中如果都不追捧Ivy，念个普通体面大学就很开心的话，那么自己会轻松多了，孩子
: 也轻松多了，将来成功的可能性也大多了。
: 各州的公立不是也很好吗，还省钱。
: 其实呢，少花点钱在教育上，剩下的钱可以做很多事情啊，给孩子们点钱到处旅游啊，
: 泡妞啊。自己掏钱做公益也可以啊。说到底，老中太自私，少数这样还有便宜占，都这
: 样了，自然就没有没有机会了。而且，本来名校是培养治国精英和学术精英的，前者在
: 华人如此小基数的情况下是不可能的，后者天赋是主要的，兴趣更重要，比起来美国人
: 在学术上并不弱。
: 人生来自身条件是不平等的，譬如，还有相貌，就算念了常青藤，做了医生，可是长的
: 丑，那给我做女婿我都不要。孩子聪明念普通学校更出类拔萃啊，将来喜欢做学问一样
| w********e
发帖数: 4186 | 10 一次一个讲理财的白人理财师，说她意识到自己该存教育基金的时刻是女儿从学校拿回
一张单子，上面写着女儿成绩是全年级第20名，她知道女儿不会上州立大学给她省钱了。
我们这里高中毕业生在州统考中到某个百分比，上州立大学免学费，不过，利用这个政
策的人不多，白的，华的都不用。
【在 p********5 的大作中提到】
: 我阿姨说，他们高中，前几名的，如果是白人，选州立，如果是华人，选名校。
| | | x**k
发帖数: 358 | 11
抬个杠啊，因为老美嫌我们的孩子太用功学习太好，华人就立马放弃自己的传统教育观
， 放养啊， 强调 enjoy life 啊， 通过让自己的孩子向平均水平看齐的方式融入社
会， 算不算“只是适应外在标准",缺乏 leadership？
【在 z********i 的大作中提到】
: 不知道是不是第一代华人习惯于区适应外在的标准，比如说各种考试，用各种分数，奖
: 励来衡量自己成功与否。
: 但事实是，不论在中国美国，只是适应外在标准的人好像都很难有突出的表现或成功，
: 也很少影响别人。美国学校强调的leadership，还是很有道理的：领导别人，才有可能
: 做出较大的成就。
: 希望换人能更diverse一些，能建立更好的network。单打独斗是费力不讨好的。比如说
: ，律师吧。不少律师是有背景的，有的家人是法官，有的家人是律师。一穷二白当上律
: 师，需要多付出很多。
:
: depend
| n********h
发帖数: 13135 | 12 这个我同意, 不过是一种歧视的手段而已, 以前用在犹太人身上, 现在用在亚意身上.
【在 i******m 的大作中提到】
: 根本不是牙一学生的问题
: 而是媒体一贯的妖魔化
: 始终带着有色眼睛来衡量牙一的成就
| d***a
发帖数: 13752 | 13 亚裔和犹太人有一个显著的不同：民族和国家背景不一样。东亚国家，
包括中国，日本，韩国，新加坡，经济实力都相当强盛。 | d*****t
发帖数: 7903 | 14 呵呵，这是打脸吗？
【在 x**k 的大作中提到】
:
: 抬个杠啊，因为老美嫌我们的孩子太用功学习太好，华人就立马放弃自己的传统教育观
: ， 放养啊， 强调 enjoy life 啊， 通过让自己的孩子向平均水平看齐的方式融入社
: 会， 算不算“只是适应外在标准",缺乏 leadership？
| z********i
发帖数: 568 | 15 欢迎讨论。
没有说去完全放弃自己的优势，只是希望能意识到自己优势之外的不足。其实老美也在
反思自己的教育。读过一篇文章，讨论现在藤校名校的精英教育，反而对社会的正面影
响在减少，总裁们越来越倾向于寻求自己的利益，而没有动力意识去引导社会。
历史上，华人在经济上往往能有很快的发展与成就，可政治上没有实力。一旦动乱，任
人宰割，没有有力的保护：菲律宾，墨西哥，西雅图，洛杉矶，等等。
【在 x**k 的大作中提到】
:
: 抬个杠啊，因为老美嫌我们的孩子太用功学习太好，华人就立马放弃自己的传统教育观
: ， 放养啊， 强调 enjoy life 啊， 通过让自己的孩子向平均水平看齐的方式融入社
: 会， 算不算“只是适应外在标准",缺乏 leadership？
| l****y
发帖数: 398 | 16 还是得把人口弄上去啊
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
【在 z********i 的大作中提到】
: 欢迎讨论。
: 没有说去完全放弃自己的优势，只是希望能意识到自己优势之外的不足。其实老美也在
: 反思自己的教育。读过一篇文章，讨论现在藤校名校的精英教育，反而对社会的正面影
: 响在减少，总裁们越来越倾向于寻求自己的利益，而没有动力意识去引导社会。
: 历史上，华人在经济上往往能有很快的发展与成就，可政治上没有实力。一旦动乱，任
: 人宰割，没有有力的保护：菲律宾，墨西哥，西雅图，洛杉矶，等等。
|
|
