m********a
发帖数: 1312 | 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- |
r******g
发帖数: 4002 | 2 (纽约时报)是民主党老黑政府的打手。华人支持民主党有点不可思议！ |
m********a
发帖数: 1312 | 3 我也知道纽约时报是民主党的党报。但好歹这篇文章指出了AA的可笑之处，好像作者是
个华人。
【在 r******g 的大作中提到】
: (纽约时报)是民主党老黑政府的打手。华人支持民主党有点不可思议！
|
b*******h
发帖数: 2585 | 4 华人受到两个种族主义的夹击。一个是白人至上，另一个是AA。 |
N***Y
发帖数: 2407 | |
j*****7
发帖数: 4348 | 6 华人的校友要是能大量的给学校捐款，可能情况会不一样。 |
m********a
发帖数: 1312 | 7 好歹先废了这个打着种族平等旗号，干宗族歧视勾当的AA。老黑估计没人捐钱，更加低
分录取，有没有天理啦。
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 华人的校友要是能大量的给学校捐款，可能情况会不一样。
|
w*********g
发帖数: 30882 | 8
不完全是。可能会管点用，但是不能起决定作用。
虽然WASP和犹太人也这么做并且得到认可，但是华人也这么做就会被指责收买学校。黑
人虽然不是白人，但是黑人背后没有一个强大到足以跟美国竞争的国家在那里。所以即
使黑人录取多一点，白人也没有感到受威胁。华人不一样。华人如果录取的多了，形成
了势力，白人就该担心美国华人跟中国里应外合了。
说到底还是种族竞争国际秩序主导权的问题。
【在 j*****7 的大作中提到】
: 华人的校友要是能大量的给学校捐款，可能情况会不一样。
|
p***i
发帖数: 2119 | 9 閱讀能力啊！華人跟白人比背景相似，相對於白人不應該被歧視。如果白人叫囂自己相
對於黑人被歧視，就是有點矯情了。
【在 m********a 的大作中提到】
: 我也知道纽约时报是民主党的党报。但好歹这篇文章指出了AA的可笑之处，好像作者是
: 个华人。
|
m********a
发帖数: 1312 | 10 阅读能力不好，不明白你想说啥。
【在 p***i 的大作中提到】
: 閱讀能力啊！華人跟白人比背景相似，相對於白人不應該被歧視。如果白人叫囂自己相
: 對於黑人被歧視，就是有點矯情了。
|
|
|
p***i
发帖数: 2119 | 11 該文作者就是要說亞裔相對白人受到歧視啊。
【在 m********a 的大作中提到】
: 阅读能力不好，不明白你想说啥。
|
m********a
发帖数: 1312 | 12 政府不折腾，谁都不受歧视。偏偏有些人跑出来自以为聪明扮上帝，帮了这个欺负那个。
这个上面根本不敢跟黑人比，为啥？又政治不正确了。我们又不欠黑人的，也是
minority，凭啥欺负我们。
【在 p***i 的大作中提到】
: 該文作者就是要說亞裔相對白人受到歧視啊。
|
p***i
发帖数: 2119 | 13 跟黑人比甚麼，人家那是奴隸後代，美國白人欠了他們的。現在現實的目標是爭取跟白
人、猶太人同等待遇。
你這第一句話問題太大了。種族主義不是政府搞出來的，是根深蒂固的。常青藤歧視亞
裔，不能不說是種族主義作祟。當初歧視猶太人也是同樣的原因。
个。
【在 m********a 的大作中提到】
: 政府不折腾，谁都不受歧视。偏偏有些人跑出来自以为聪明扮上帝，帮了这个欺负那个。
: 这个上面根本不敢跟黑人比，为啥？又政治不正确了。我们又不欠黑人的，也是
: minority，凭啥欺负我们。
|
v**********m
发帖数: 5516 | 14 顶这个。
【在 b*******h 的大作中提到】
: 华人受到两个种族主义的夹击。一个是白人至上，另一个是AA。
|
w*********g
发帖数: 30882 | 15 将来黑人和老墨得了美国，华人只会混得更惨，更窝囊。
因为论智力、论心机、论勤奋刻苦，老墨和老黑都比不了华人，所以只能制定出各种各
样绝对种族主义的政策来防止华人获得超越他们的经济地位，就如同印尼和马来西亚的
当地土人对华人做的那样。 |
r******g
发帖数: 4002 | 16 民主党老黑政府的政策就是利用和鼓励墨西哥非法移民，没有老墨非法移民这一块，奥巴
马这一次根本不可能连任，今后一切资源必然向老黑老墨倾斜。
【在 w*********g 的大作中提到】
: 将来黑人和老墨得了美国，华人只会混得更惨，更窝囊。
: 因为论智力、论心机、论勤奋刻苦，老墨和老黑都比不了华人，所以只能制定出各种各
: 样绝对种族主义的政策来防止华人获得超越他们的经济地位，就如同印尼和马来西亚的
: 当地土人对华人做的那样。
|
w*********g
发帖数: 30882 | 17
奥巴
只希望美国不会变成下一个印尼。
【在 r******g 的大作中提到】
: 民主党老黑政府的政策就是利用和鼓励墨西哥非法移民，没有老墨非法移民这一块，奥巴
: 马这一次根本不可能连任，今后一切资源必然向老黑老墨倾斜。
|
b*******h
发帖数: 2585 | 18 华人有钱的话应该做的是建自己的学校。而不是给常春藤这种地方送孩子送钱。
没钱是没办法，谁给工钱就给谁干。谁给奖学金就去
有钱还舔人家屁眼， 就是自作孽不可活了。
【在 w*********g 的大作中提到】
:
: 奥巴
: 只希望美国不会变成下一个印尼。
|
m********a
发帖数: 1312 | 19 就算白人欠了他们，我们没有。常青藤不谈，公立学校纳税人出钱办的，凭什么我们的
孩子被歧视。没有那个AA他们搞不平等对待也要先想清楚会不会被告。
你就算是铁杆民主党拥护者也拜托有点自己的主张，主子帮黑人搞华人，你黄皮的也来
帮忙洗地。我虽然支持共和党，但是也不会什么都无脑跟进。
【在 p***i 的大作中提到】
: 跟黑人比甚麼，人家那是奴隸後代，美國白人欠了他們的。現在現實的目標是爭取跟白
: 人、猶太人同等待遇。
: 你這第一句話問題太大了。種族主義不是政府搞出來的，是根深蒂固的。常青藤歧視亞
: 裔，不能不說是種族主義作祟。當初歧視猶太人也是同樣的原因。
:
: 个。
|
b*******n
发帖数: 8420 | 20 不知道支持AA的是没有孩子，还是把自己孩子漂白/染黑了，或者单纯就是脑残？
当然也有可能自己的孩子是当前游戏规则下少数的幸运儿，有了AA这道门槛可以把竞争
力差不多的其他亚裔孩子挡在外面
【在 m********a 的大作中提到】
: 好歹先废了这个打着种族平等旗号，干宗族歧视勾当的AA。老黑估计没人捐钱，更加低
: 分录取，有没有天理啦。
|
p***i
发帖数: 2119 | 21 你好好看了文章沒有？只要達到跟白人同樣標準，亞裔入學率就可以增加很多。不跟白
人比，盯著弱很多的黑人幹甚麼？
【在 m********a 的大作中提到】
: 就算白人欠了他们，我们没有。常青藤不谈，公立学校纳税人出钱办的，凭什么我们的
: 孩子被歧视。没有那个AA他们搞不平等对待也要先想清楚会不会被告。
: 你就算是铁杆民主党拥护者也拜托有点自己的主张，主子帮黑人搞华人，你黄皮的也来
: 帮忙洗地。我虽然支持共和党，但是也不会什么都无脑跟进。
|
r******g
发帖数: 4002 | 22 老黑都可以凭一身黑皮选上总统，还弱？别自以为是，老黑比大部分老中都过得滋润！
【在 p***i 的大作中提到】
: 你好好看了文章沒有？只要達到跟白人同樣標準，亞裔入學率就可以增加很多。不跟白
: 人比，盯著弱很多的黑人幹甚麼？
|
