
What Chinese students go through to get into top American universities (2016) - chethiya
https://www.1843magazine.com/features/the-long-march-from-china-to-the-ivies
======
kyleschiller

      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...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-harberson-asian-
american-admission-rates-20150609-story.html)

[1] [http://www.wsj.com/articles/asian-american-organizations-
see...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/asian-american-organizations-seek-federal-
probe-of-harvard-admission-policies-1431719348)

[2] [https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-
colleges-...](https://priceonomics.com/post/48794283011/do-elite-colleges-
discriminate-against-asians)

~~~
crispyambulance
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.

~~~
umanwizard
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.

~~~
hatmatrix
But what is "best"? While their achievements are commendable, admitting all of
them will lead to a homogeneous student body and presumably not the best
outcome for the institution, its graduates, or society.

~~~
witty_username
What is wrong with a homogeneous student body? Forced diversity is AS racist
as discrimination against blacks.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
Eisenhower federalizing the Arkansas National Guard to compel a public school
to accept 9 black students was "forced diversity". Every step we've made
against racism has been "forced diversity". Denying people the right to
intimidate, even murder minorities to keep "a homogeneous student body" is
"forced diversity". What it is _not_ is racism.

This is the heart and soul of why we no longer tolerate "a homogeneous student
body". Because we know how that plays out.

------
6stringmerc
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...

------
titomc
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 ?

~~~
xyzzy4
You don't have to pay back loans if you don't return to your home country.

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

~~~
xyzzy4
A lot of lenders are idiots. My evidence is the 2008 subprime lending crisis.

~~~
titomc
2008 subprime lending crisis happened only in America.

Lets think outside of America for this one. Lenders outside America are not
idiots. Most of them lend on a solid collateral and someone from the family
will have to have co-sign the loan, especially if its a huge sum.

------
cik2e
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.

~~~
kyukyukyufan
True. I can relate.

------
lordnacho
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.

~~~
Bartweiss
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.

------
nraynaud
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
> 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
>> 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.

~~~
nraynaud
and one at ASU last year.

------
Balgair
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!

~~~
wolfgke
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.

~~~
Balgair
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.

