What Chinese students go through to get into top American universities (2016)

https://www.1843magazine.com/features/the-long-march-from-china-to-the-ivies

by chethiya • 9 years ago

92 96 9 years ago

  Chinese students are products of an educational system that, for all of its high achievers, is built to suppress intellectual curiosity, creativity and individuality – the very qualities that American admissions officers value most.

Let's not pretend Chinese students are turned away because they lack individuality.

The fairly well documented[0][1][2] truth here is that American universities are using qualities like "leadership" to justify what is really a quota on Asian students.

I totally understand that none of the evidence is conclusive, but the fact that this is happening to Asian American students, who for the most part never go through the Chinese educational system this particular article blames, should at least cast a good amount of doubt on their claim.

[0] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-harberson-asian-a...

[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/asian-american-organizations-see...

[2] https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-...

qntty• 9 years ago

There's a big difference between the discrimination against Asian-American students (which does happen) and discrimination against students from Asia. For one, public universities exist mostly to educate people from the state they are based, and can justify discriminating against people outside the state and even more against people who don't live in states which exchange students with that state (i.e. people outside the country).

Private universities can also say that one of their main purposes is to educate the population of the countries that they are based in.

None of this justifies discriminating against Asian-American students, which is truly unjust, and shouldn't be confused for justifiable discrimination.

Naritai3• 9 years ago

But if that (educating their own country's people) were their goal (leaving aside, for the moment, whether we agree on the validity of that goal), it would be much better if they just said so, rather than relying on a stereotype-driven narrative instead.

BeetleB• 9 years ago

None of this justifies discriminating against Asian-American students, which is truly unjust, and shouldn't be confused for justifiable discrimination.

I keep hearing this (primarily from Asian Americans who feel they didn't get into their preferred top N school), and yet they never provide evidence to support it.

They give me reason and logic, but no evidence. It is trivially easy to find counterexamples to all their reason.

crispyambulance3• 9 years ago

Admissions try to get a well-rounded student body rather than many well-rounded students but the Asian-American "tiger-mom" phenomena is not a joke for elite college admissions officers. They really do see large numbers of what are known (in derogatory terms) as Asian-clones: 4.0 GPA, violin or piano skills, and no authentic detectable motivation other than getting high grades for the purpose of becoming a doctor or lawyer.

munin• 9 years ago

and no authentic detectable motivation

They're 18. What do you want? What authentic motivation did you have when you were 18?

umanwizard• 9 years ago

So? If the 1000 best candidates are Asian then you should admit the 1000 Asians.

I can see giving extra help to historically marginalized races at the expense of whites, but why ding Asians? They weren't responsible for racism in the US. They weren't the ones stealing resources from other people.

Do correct me if I'm wrong but your post seems to amount to "a lot of Asians work hard and are smart, so let's have a quota on Asians because they're hardworking and smart in a way I find boring".

By the way, as a matter of policy, it seems fine to me if people can become doctors who are smart and who only worked hard because they wanted to become doctors. When I go to the doctor I care mainly about whether they know their shit, not whether they were subjectively "well-rounded" at age 18.

startupdiscuss3• 9 years ago

And that's who I want representing me in court and diagnosing my medical conditions!

kyukyukyufan2• 9 years ago

4.0GPA, violin/piano, wanting to become doctor/lawyer...aren't these good enough for you??? High GPA means they're diligent, focused, violin/piano implied artistic talent, wanting to become doctor/lawyer suggests drive and ambition. What else do you want from them??? What else do you want??? Not many American students match up I'm afraid to say.

inimino4• 9 years ago

Let's not pretend Chinese students are turned away because they lack individuality.

They absolutely are.

As someone who has been involved in this process, this is without question the biggest challenge for Chinese students to apply to top schools. They simply do not have the individuality and intellectual curiosity that US universities want. The reason is because having those qualities is totally incompatible with high achievement in the Chinese educational system up through high school. The high scoring Chinese students were either never interested in critical thought or they completely repressed that tendency at an early age.

wolfgke12• 9 years ago

The high scoring Chinese students were either never interested in critical thought

What you call "critical thought" is what I would rather call "'critical' thought in what is the currently an opportune fashion". I know lots of people who have critical thoughts, but not in the sense of what admission panels like to see as "critical thought".

nraynaud2• 9 years ago

They forgot to mention the SEVIS record madness (want to know what the muslim registry will look like?), I20, being heckled or killed in the streets and casual border crossing racism by the CBP.

dominotw• 9 years ago

being heckled or killed in the streets

huh?

casual border crossing racism by the CBP.

I had an "immigration office" tell me "you will be kicked out like dogs if these documents don't verify". My dad swore off visiting me in America due to his similar experience, I don't blame him. What decent person would put up with this, why do they do this?

defen• 9 years ago

> being heckled or killed in the streets
huh?

There were a couple (at least 2, maybe 3) of high-profile murders of Chinese grad students at UCLA within the past couple of years, which is my guess about what OP is referring to. The victims were targeted for their perceived wealth and/or foreignness.

Someone1234• 9 years ago

I'm very confused by your post. I know what SEVIS is and have personally experienced a LOT of problems with CBP, and agree that racism is part of the organisation's core.

But the "hackled or killed in the streets." What does that refer to?

wolfgke12• 9 years ago

being heckled or killed

Not being a native English speaker, I had to look up the meaning of "to heckle". Before I looked it up, in the context with "killed" I thought it would be a cynic derivation from "Heckler & Koch" (a gun manufacturer), just as "to hoover" (in British English), "to taser" or "to google". :-)

PakG1• 9 years ago

I work in China these days for the past few years. Have Canadian citizenship. During the holidays, visited friends in New York and went to Seattle. Both times, I was pulled aside for second inspection. New York got a total douche. He was on a power trip as we walked across the lobby, asking people if they saw a sign that said they could use their cell phones. No, then put the phone away. Eh, didn't see any signage saying it wasn't OK... https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume1...

Going to Seattle, the guy was nice this time. He said he'd let me know why I got pulled aside for the extent that he was legally able, because being pulled aside had ruined our ability to go to the Boeing Future of Flight Center, which closed entry by a certain time. Apparently, going to China so often flags me. As well, the fact that my dad and I had just visited Turkey also. OK, I get if there are reasons that I get flagged, and most of these guys are just doing their jobs. But don't be a douche like the first guy. Be nice like the second guy.

titomc2• 9 years ago

Part deux: What Asian students go through once they get their degrees from American Universities.

They go down the rabbit hole of America's broken immigration system, starting with OPT visa, then H1B (read lottery luck, not based on skills) & then the country based quota for green card currently 7 to 9 years for EB2 categories for India & China. Did I forgot to mention the exorbitant out of state tuition fees and the loans they took for it in their home country ?

wolfgke12• 9 years ago

The students characterized in this article come from rather prosperous families.

xyzzy42• 9 years ago

You don't have to pay back loans if you don't return to your home country.

Flammy• 9 years ago

The lenders are not idiots. I'm very sure they either are signed by their families or they have other ways of enforcing collection.

zumu• 9 years ago

Did I forgot to mention the exorbitant out of state tuition fees and the loans they took for it in their home country ?

I had a lot of close Chinese(PRC) friends in college, and most of them were extremely rich. I know it's anecdotal, but I find it hard to believe a lot of Chinese exchange students are going deep into debt to afford US schools. From what they describe, the student visa interview process favors financially sound students.

That being said, what you've said about the visa system rings painfully true.

6stringmerc2• 9 years ago

Tangential Asian-National Students in US University Anecdote Time:

I attended a rather prestigious Graduate School program in the Liberal Arts at a state school. Education specifically. Campus population in the tens of thousands.

In some classes, I actually felt like part of a minority. There were consistently large populations Asian nationals in the field. Many nationalities, mind you, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and maybe one or two others. Teachers in their home country, they were attending to get the US Masters/PhD with every intention of returning home and getting a raise.

Yes, they did participate well in the learning environment, language issues aside, but more than one got homesick and would quit the program due to culture shock of living in the US for 2+ years. I can sympathize.

My takeaway was that the University was very happy to take the (presumably) higher tuition from foreign students primarily interested in the Degree for status advancement than turn them away. It could help keep a department going in a way, and, in turn, the University didn't worry that these graduates were going to stick around and try to get US jobs on those degrees. It kind of wasn't the bargain.

It is worth noting, I think, that most of the Asian national students in my program or field were in their 30s or 40s. They had life experience, families, professional careers...I guess the point of the reflection is the University got a good revenue stream and the Graduates got their Degree for status back home. Win-win? Ehhhh...

lordnacho• 9 years ago

Regarding the children of famous/important people, perhaps someone can shed some light.

How exactly do you specify on your application who your parents are?

I remember the process at Oxford, there wasn't really a way to say "oh btw my dad is a rock star" other than the personal statement. And it's hardly going to impress the person who's interviewing you to blurt out something like that, because all the questions are technical.

Bartweiss5• 9 years ago

It depends a lot on the degree and type of importance.

If your dad is Mick Jagger, the last name will probably suffice. Less facetiously, there are still Roosevelts and Cabbotts and Coolidges out there and those names do carry weight in some places. I imagine there are some names which would go pretty far at Oxford too.

If your parents are more self-made (or the last name doesn't reflect the lineage), the personal statement can absolutely cover this. "Growing up in the shadow of my family" is partly about personal development, but partly a way to say "check out my family".

Honestly, though?

In the US, this gets handled via side channels. Our applications have a space for 'legacy status', where you list past attendees in your family. Anything counts, but rich and famous alumni are especially good. And if your family is important enough, they'll probably have talked to the school completely independent of your application. Likely, they'll have started years before you applied.

I know several people from top US colleges who have a story about meeting some strangely unqualified classmate, and then discovering that they shared a name with some building on campus. At the very top end, there's certainly room to pave the way with donations and personal friendships.

csa9• 9 years ago

In the US, there are at least three ways this is handled:

1. Parents are known. Think Chelsea Clinton.

2. Parents are known social elites within the school's geographic circle. Usually trustees will get involved, sometimes writing recommendations.

3. If parents are elites outside of the school social circle, this is often handled by folks on the local/regional admissions boards (the ones applicants interview with). They can provide a lot of insight in this area.

caminante• 9 years ago

It's an off application transaction.

The kid's parent or an agent (e.g. alumni donor) calls admissions to endorse or negotiate. This happens even if your parents are "famous" and you check the [x] for legacy applicant because the admissions team is screening tens of thousands of applicants.

cik2e• 9 years ago

My statistics graduate program was about 2/3 Chinese with very poor English skills. This lead to complete self-segregation and a horrible TA experience for undergrads they were assigned to. To boot, cheating in this group was rampant.

kyukyukyufan2• 9 years ago

True. I can relate.

Balgair2• 9 years ago

Christ almighty, I wish I could share the actual source, but I can't find it.

There was a study a decade(?) ago that took a look at 'Top Schools' and instead of looking at the best students, they took a look at the worst students. They took out the legacy children, the athletes, etc, and only looked at the kids that got in on their 'merits'. Typically, the schools will have a ranking system that combines GPA, ACT, SAT, etc. The researchers (out of Michigan, maybe?) then looked at the bottom people in that ranking order that accepted into the schools.

I read the popular press article about it (Wired?) where they focused on a kid from Arizona that got into Stanford. He was super passionate about this park near his house that he hiked in. His grades and whatnot were average at best. When budget cuts closed the park, the guy fundraised and solicited the state house until the park re-opened. He applied to Stanford on a lark, and got in mostly based on the essay about the park closure.

The researchers concluded that the 'bottom' kids that got into super elite schools were are very unique, but similar in one way: They were super passionate about one specific thing. These kids were really spiky, not well-rounded. Effectively, Stanford et al. were actually asking the kids to come to their schools. These kids really didn't need the schools to begin with, they were going to continue doing their thing anyways. But those schools wanted those kids because of that passion.

So maybe then we should be trying to go for that approach when it comes to education for our children. Maybe we should be trying to make them super passionate about one specific thing and not trying to be well rounded; a 'T' shaped mind where they have a little bit of know-how about a lot of stuff and a lot of know-how about one thing instead of a '---' shaped mind where they know a little bit about a whole ton of things.

If anyone knows where the original paper is, PLEASE link it!

wolfgke12• 9 years ago

Only because there exist a few kids who are very passionate about a specific thing and thus admitted to a top school this does not imply, that the "typical" kid with this property will be admitted.

I would rather conjecture that many well-rounded pupils will get admitted plus a few (but not more) "special characters". Thus it would be a bad strategy if you want to go to Stanford to become passionate in only one thing.

Balgair2• 9 years ago

From the research, what I took away was that you should just 'be awesome' at whatever you want to be 'awesome' at, work on those things, and not really care who 'wants' you. Like, all those students that did get in would have still gone and done the things that they wanted to do. They were that passionate. That, I think, is the 'better life' path. And since the original article that stated this HN thread was focused on people that are trying to have a better life, I think it has a lot to say. Instead of trying to kill your personality and passion and trying to be yet another perfect little gingerbread-man so you have a chance at the slot-machine that is college admissions, encourage your passions and grit and personality and live a life you want to live, have that better life now and do what you want to be doing. The 'typical' kid should go be passionate and love something and not give a damn about getting into Stanford. How to find that passion or that thing? I have no idea and am still searching myself. But I'd think that path of searching is a lot better than being yet another perfect applicant.

What Chinese students go through to get into top American universities (2016)

Related Stories