由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
Parenting版 - 爬藤的家长注意喽
相关主题
Support Asian American students!!!由加州SCA5看AA平权法案及亚裔的应对策略 (转载)
藤娃谈AARe: 哈佛诉讼案对亚裔平权的深远影响及现阶段普通亚裔的参与 (
AA其实对亚裔并非不利科普贴:高法对AA案子的判决及其对华裔学生的影响 (转载)
Reflect on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's wisdom被 BLUM 钦点的起诉哈佛和 UNC 的原告
望提高亚裔高校录取率的“法律之友”已递交最高法院fisher案介绍, 含大量私货,下流,恶毒,不喜勿入
AA及大学招生亚裔被歧视:抛砖引玉我邻居的心酸经历,女人何苦为难女人?
除了德州,还有什么学校在招收亚裔大学学生时提高分数线?再论AA
呼应一下raki: O编辑总结:由加州SCA5看AA平权法案及亚裔的应对策略哈佛大学的录取制度和美国最高法院的渊源
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: 8197话题: students话题: african话题: american话题: more
进入Parenting版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
L********r
发帖数: 758
1
下面的文章要读一读。
文章摘要如下:鸡头>凤尾原则是被广泛观察到的现象所支持的。同一入学新生,相比
于去与自己水平相当的大学,选择去比自己水平高很多的藤校是很不明智的。所以AA造
成对黑青年“毁人>诲人”。
如斯成立,则亚裔家长推自个的娃也须小心。如家长推了10年娃也没学会自推,那靠补
习班、凑活动经验上了藤校也是去给牛娃当分母做尾巴去了,也许不如去一州校帮助大
。学费省下来还可以投资给娃当个天使基金啥的。
发信人: yariguy (yari guy), 信区: Parenting
标 题: Re: Support Asian American students!!!
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jan 21 10:52:51 2013, 美东)
The Say Irony of Affirmative Action by Prof Gail Heriot
In 2003, the Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan's law school
could substantially relax its admissions standards in order to admit a "
critical mass" of African-American and Hispanic students. Many observers
interpreted that decision — Grutter v. Bollinger — as an
open-ended embrace of affirmative action.
The University of Texas was among the many universities emboldened to ramp
up its use of race-preferential admissions policies. In 2003, the university
already had in place an admissions policy designed to raise the number of
under-represented minority students attending its flagship campus in Austin
by admitting the "top 10%" of the graduates of each Texas high school
without regard to SAT scores. Soon after the Grutter decision, however, the
university announced that it was still dissatisfied with the diversity of
the student body at Austin, 21% of which was composed of under-represented
minorities (16.9% Hispanic and 4.5% African-American), and that the school
would be implementing race preferences to boost that diversity. Under the
new policy, the proportion of the student body composed of Hispanics and
African-Americans rose to 25%.
The result was a lawsuit. The plaintiff — Abigail Fisher 
— is a young woman from Texas whose academic credentials were good,
but not quite up to the standards that whites and Asians must meet in order
to gain admission. They were, however, above those necessary for African-
American and Hispanic students. Fisher, who is white, was rejected, and
wound up attending the less prestigious and (for out-of-state students) more
expensive Louisiana State University. Her case — Fisher v.
University of Texas — was argued before the Supreme Court in October.
It will be decided sometime in the coming months.
The Court may decide Fisher on narrow grounds. There are several dimensions
along which the University of Texas's race-preferential admissions policies
are more aggressive than those in Grutter. For example, Grutter permitted
Michigan to use racially preferential admissions policies to admit a "
critical mass" of African-Americans and Hispanics to its overall student
body. Texas, however, takes the position that it needs "critical mass" not
just in its student body as a whole, but in each classroom, program, and
major. Under the "top 10%" policy, Texas had likely already achieved a "
critical mass" of minorities across its student body. Classroom-level "
critical mass," however, requires much more extensive preferences; it could
conceivably justify racial discrimination in course registration and other
more aggressive discriminatory practices.
Affirmative-action supporters worry, however, that the Court will take the
opportunity to cut back severely on Grutter. They point to changes in the
Court's personnel — most notably Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's
replacement with Justice Samuel Alito — as cause for concern.
Since Grutter was a 5-4 decision, it may not take much to swing the Court in
the opposite direction.
The biggest change since Grutter, though, has nothing to do with Court
membership. It is the mounting empirical evidence that race preferences are
doing more harm than good — even for their supposed
beneficiaries. If this evidence is correct, we now have fewer African-
American physicians, scientists, and engineers than we would have had using
race-neutral admissions policies. We have fewer college professors and
lawyers, too. Put more bluntly, affirmative action has backfired.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF MISMATCH
How could such a miscalculation about the effects of affirmative action
occur? As University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Richard
Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor, Jr., describe in their important,
recently released book, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It'
s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It, one consequence of
widespread race-preferential policies is that minority students tend to
enroll in colleges and universities where their entering academic
credentials put them toward the bottom of the class. While academically
gifted under-represented minority students are hardly rare, there are not
enough to satisfy the demand of top schools. When the most prestigious
schools relax their admissions policies in order to admit more minority
students, they start a chain reaction, resulting in a substantial
credentials gap at nearly all selective schools.
For example, according to data released by the University of Texas in
connection with Fisher, the mean SAT scores (out of 2400) and mean high-
school grade-point averages (on a 4.0 scale) varied widely by race for the
entering class of 2009. For Asians, the numbers were 1991 and 3.07; whites
were at 1914 and 3.04; Hispanics at 1794 and 2.83; and African-Americans at
1524 and 2.57. The SAT scores for the Asian students placed them in the 93rd
percentile of 2009 SAT-takers nationwide; the African-American students,
meanwhile, were at the 52nd percentile.
This has the predictable effect of lowering the college or professional-
school grades the average minority student earns. And the reason is simple:
While some students will outperform their entering credentials, just as some
students will underperform theirs, most students perform in the range that
their entering credentials suggest.
No serious supporter of race-preferential admissions denies this. In their
highly influential defense of affirmative action, The Shape of the River:
Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University
Admissions (discussed later in more detail), former Ivy League university
presidents William Bowen and Derek Bok candidly admitted that low college
grades for affirmative-action beneficiaries present a "sobering picture."
This is an understatement: The average African-American first-year law
student has a grade-point average in the bottom 10% of his or her class. And
while undergraduate GPAs for affirmative-action beneficiaries aren't quite
as disappointing, that is in part because, as explained below, affirmative-
action beneficiaries tend to shy away from subjects like science and
engineering, which are graded on a tougher curve than other subjects.
One example that helps illustrate the consequences of mismatch —&#
8197;how lower entering academic credentials depress both academic
performance and grades, and how lower-than-average academic performance and
grades in turn harm professional ambitions — is the field of
academia. In 2003, too late to be cited to the Court in Grutter, Stephen
Cole and Elinor Barber published Increasing Faculty Diversity: The
Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students. The authors'
mission was to determine why more members of minority groups are not
attracted to careers in the academy. The authors' conclusions, reached after
extensively questioning 7,612 high-achieving undergraduates at 34 colleges
and universities, pointed to race-preferential admissions as the culprit.
"It is a fact," Cole and Barber wrote, "that in virtually all selective
schools...where racial preferences in admission is practiced, the majority
of African American students end up in the lower quarter of their class."
Lower grades sap the academic self-confidence of African-American students
at elite schools, according to the authors, which in turn causes them to
abandon their freshman interests in academic careers. Their counterparts at
non-elite schools, on the other hand, are more likely to persist and to
ultimately succeed. These counterparts enjoy school, in part because they
correctly perceive that they are good at it, and they want to stay on campus
to pursue careers in academia.
Cole and Barber found that the effect of grades on career ambitions was in
fact substantial. The authors noted that among African-American students
with GPAs at or near 2.6, only about 4% wanted to become college professors.
Among those with GPAs at or near 4.0, however, the number was over 20%.
These findings build on long-established observations about the importance
of grades and perceived achievement. Indeed, as early as 1966, University of
Chicago sociologist James Davis published research demonstrating that a
student who attends a school that is out of his academic league is often put
at a professional disadvantage. In "The Campus as a Frog Pond: An
Application of the Theory of Relative Deprivation to Career Decisions of
College Men," Davis controlled for entering academic credentials and
compared students at schools of different academic rank, examining their
career choices to see which pursued "high performance" careers (in law,
medicine, science, etc.). He found that college GPA correlated more strongly
to career choice than did the academic rank of the school attended. He
explained this finding in terms of the "theory of relative deprivation,"
under which students can be expected to measure their own potential in
comparison to their immediate classmates, generally using one another's
grades as "the accepted yardstick."
Davis put his conclusion in somewhat quaint terms. "Counselors and parents
might well consider the drawbacks as well as the advantages of sending a boy
to a ‘fine' college, if, when doing so, it is fairly certain he will end
up in the bottom ranks of his graduating class," he wrote. Davis's research
spawned a cottage industry in sociological studies on the hazards of being a
"small frog" in a "big pond."
Further support for Cole and Barber's conclusion comes from an unexpected
source: First Lady Michelle Obama's 1985 senior thesis at Princeton
University, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." The
future first lady mailed a questionnaire to 400 randomly selected black
alumni; though the response rate was not overwhelming, the responses of the
89 black alumni who completed the questionnaire gave reason for concern.
Black alumni were asked whether they felt "much more comfortable with Blacks
," "much more comfortable with Whites," or "about equally comfortable with
Blacks and Whites" in various contexts during three different periods in
their lives — before attending Princeton, while students at
Princeton, and after leaving Princeton.
Those who argue that race-preferential admissions foster integration might
be surprised by Obama's findings. In the category of "Intellectual Comfort,"
the number of black alumni who said that they felt "much more comfortable
with Blacks" than with whites in an intellectual setting went up upon
attending Princeton. In their pre-Princeton years, 26% of the respondents
were at greater intellectual ease with fellow blacks than with whites;
during their Princeton years, however, the number climbed to 37%. This sense
of alienation from white students did not appear in other categories of
interaction: For "Sporting Comfort," the change was in the opposite
direction (26% felt more comfortable with fellow blacks prior to Princeton,
compared with 25% who felt more comfortable with fellow blacks while at
Princeton). In the categories of "Dating Comfort" and "Business Comfort,"
the proportions of respondents who felt "much more comfortable with Blacks"
were unchanged.
It is difficult to see how reducing the "Intellectual Comfort" that black
students feel with whites can lead to greater black achievement. Yet this is
just one of the many perverse effects of affirmative action and the
academic mismatch it causes.
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
Minority students' lack of interest in academic careers offers one example
of the consequences of mismatch, but the strongest evidence comes from the
fields of science and engineering. Contrary to what many might expect,
college-bound African-American and Hispanic students are just as interested
as white students in majoring in science and engineering. Indeed, empirical
studies show that they tend to be a little more so. But these are difficult
majors that many students abandon. Significantly, African-American and
Hispanic students jump ship at much higher rates than whites.
It is not surprising that students with lower entering academic credentials
give up on their ambitions to get degrees in science and engineering more
often than students with higher academic credentials. What some do find
surprising is this: Three in-depth studies have demonstrated that part of
the effect is relative. An aspiring science or engineering major who attends
a school where his entering academic credentials put him in the middle or
the top of his class is more likely to persevere, and ultimately to succeed,
than an otherwise identical student attending a more elite school where
those same credentials place him nearer to the bottom of his class. Put
differently, a student's chances of success in science or engineering are
increased not only if his entering credentials are high, but also if those
credentials compare favorably with his classmates'.
The earliest of these studies — titled "The Role of Ethnicity
in Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective Institutions" —&#
8197;was published in 1996 by a team of scholars led by Dartmouth
psychologist Rogers Elliott. It found that the single most important cause
for minority attrition from science at the selective institutions studied
was the "relatively low preparation of black aspirants to science in these
schools." The authors were careful to use the word "relatively." It wasn't
just entering credentials demonstrating highly developed ability at science
that mattered, but comparatively high credentials. A student who attended a
school at which his math SAT score was in the top third of his class was
much more likely to follow through with an ambition to earn a degree in
science or engineering than was a student with the same score who attended a
school at which that score was in the bottom third of the class. The
problem for minority students was that, as a result of affirmative action,
being in the top third of the class was relatively rare.
Elliott and his co-authors cited the extraordinary record of historically
black colleges and universities, which graduate far more than their share of
black engineering and science majors, as further support for their findings
. Unlike at other colleges and universities, credentials gaps are not an
issue at the historically black institutions. As one faculty member at a
historically black school — North Carolina Central University's
Walter Pattillo, Jr. — told Science magazine in 1992: "The way
we see it, the majority schools are wasting large numbers of good students.
They have black students with admissions statistics [that are] very high,
tops. But these students wind up majoring in sociology or recreation or get
wiped out altogether."
A more recent study by University of Virginia psychologists Frederick Smyth
and John McArdle (now at the University of Southern California) confirmed
Elliott's findings. And the effects were not subtle. In "Ethnic and Gender
Differences in Science Graduation at Selective Colleges with Implications
for Admissions Policy and College Choice," Smyth and McArdle found that,
among a sample of under-represented minority students at 23 universities who
intended to major in science, mathematics, or engineering, 45% more of the
women and 35% more of the men would have succeeded in attaining their goals
if they had attended schools where their entering credentials had been about
average.
Another study — this one by Richard Sander, co-author of
Mismatch, and UCLA statistician Roger Bolus — pulled data from
nine University of California campuses. The authors came to a similar
conclusion. "Minority attrition in science is a very real problem," they
wrote, "and the evidence in this paper suggests that ‘negative mismatch'
probably plays a role in it." Their multiple approaches to the data yielded
consistent results: "[S]tudents with credentials more than one standard
deviation below their science peers at college are about half as likely to
end up with science bachelor degrees, compared with similar students
attending schools where their credentials are much closer to, or above, the
mean credentials of their peers."
The evidence that mismatch has hurt African-American and Hispanic students'
chances of having careers in science or engineering was highlighted in a
report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2010. The data and
methodology of the research have not been challenged. The researchers'
conclusions have not been rebutted. Nevertheless, the findings have been
ignored by colleges and universities. Indeed, one of the arguments that the
University of Texas makes before the Supreme Court in the Fisher case is
that there are not enough minority students studying science and engineering
to make those classrooms racially diverse. As a result, it claims, greater
race preferences in admissions are needed. But Texas's race-preferential
admissions will likely aggravate rather than alleviate this problem. The
more colleges and universities engage in preferential treatment, the fewer
the African-Americans and Hispanics who will graduate with degrees in
science and engineering.
And the evidence keeps piling up. Recently, Duke University economists Peter
Arcidiacono and Esteban Aucejo and Duke sociologist Ken Spenner found
evidence supporting the mismatch thesis when researching the major choices
of undergraduates enrolled at Duke. In their article in the IZA Journal of
Labor Economics, "What Happens After Enrollment? An Analysis of the Time
Path of Racial Differences in GPA and Major Choice," they found that black
undergraduates were much less likely to persist with an entering goal of
majoring in engineering, the natural sciences, or economics than white
students were. Approximately 54% of black males switched out of these majors
, while only 8% of white males did. Once again, the problem was not lack of
interest in science and engineering among black students: Indeed, before
starting at Duke, more black students than whites indicated an initial
interest in majoring in these subjects. Instead, the differences in
attrition were best explained by entering academic credentials.
These authors also dispelled the common belief that affirmative action
beneficiaries "catch up" after their freshman years with their better-
credentialed fellow students. What happens instead is that many transfer to
majors where the academic competition is less intense and where students are
graded on a more lenient curve. Their GPAs increase, but their standing
relative to their peer groups does not.
This effect is by no means confined to affirmative-action beneficiaries.
White children and grandchildren of alumni who receive legacy preferences
have the same experience, earning lower grades than white non-legacies at
the end of their first year. While the gap narrows over time, it is only
because legacy students, too, shift away from the natural sciences,
engineering, and economics and toward the humanities and social sciences. It
is exceedingly unlikely that anti-legacy bias, lack of legacy role models
on the faculty, or any other argument commonly advanced to explain racial
disparities in science explains the legacies' collective drift toward softer
majors. If it is the wrong explanation for legacies, it is overwhelmingly
likely to be the wrong explanation for under-represented minorities, too.
The study created a firestorm at Duke. Unfortunately, the administration,
instead of taking the research to heart, focused on pacifying indignant
students, alumni, and faculty members who were insulted by the results. In
an open letter to the campus responding to demands that the university
condemn the study, provost Peter Lange and other administrators stated that
they "understand how the conclusions of the research paper can be
interpreted in ways that reinforce negative stereotypes." They assured
students that there are no easy fields of study at Duke and took the
position that, insofar as the mammoth problem identified in the study exists
, it could easily be solved through student counseling and a few tweaks to
the science curriculum.
Evidently, business will remain as usual at Duke. Potential affirmative-
action recruits with an interest in science and engineering will continue to
be told that Duke is the school for them. They will not be told that their
chances of success in their chosen fields would be greater at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Nor will they be told that if they switch
majors to disciplines like African and African-American Studies, Art
History, English, Sociology, and Women's Studies, they are less likely to
enjoy lucrative careers or indeed to get jobs at all. In securities law,
this would qualify as actionable fraud. In higher education, it is
considered forward thinking.
THE MISSING BLACK LAWYERS
The problem of relative performance and credential mismatch does not end
with college graduation. It extends to professional schools as well, and is
particularly evident at America's law schools. Shortly after Cole and Barber
's book was published, Mismatch co-author Richard Sander published a study
of law schools titled "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American
Law Schools." His findings were similar. Outside of historically black
colleges and universities, up and down the law-school hierarchy, the average
African-American student had an academic index — a combination
of GPA and LSAT score — more than two standard deviations
below that of his average white classmate. Indeed, at some law schools,
there was no overlap between the entering credentials of African-American
students and those of white students (Sander did not study Hispanic students
). These gaps in entering credentials affect student performance: Sander's
research demonstrated that more than half of African-American law students
had first-year GPAs in the bottom 10% of their classes. Even critics of
Sander's ultimate conclusions agreed that these findings were both true and
troubling.
Only slightly more controversial was Sander's finding that this effect was
almost entirely the result of affirmative action. When African-American and
white law students with similar entering credentials competed against one
another, they performed very close to the same. Race-based admissions were
thus creating the illusion that African-Americans are somehow destined to be
poor law students. The truth is that, if they were attending schools where
their credentials matched the average student's, they would be just as
likely to do well.
Strangely, however, African-American and white students with identical
entering credentials were not performing similarly on the bar exam. Sander
showed that the likely reason is that they are not attending the same
schools. The African-American students were more likely to be at law schools
that are more theoretical in their approach and where "teaching to the bar
exam" is considered déclassé. Rather than benefiting from the more
competitive learning environment these schools offer, African-American
students were falling behind their white academic counterparts who were
attending somewhat less competitive schools. Sander's critics, on the other
hand, had no explanation for why white students perform better on the bar
exam than African-American students with identical credentials.
Under Sander's calculations, if law schools were to use race-neutral
admissions policies, fewer African-American students would be admitted to
law schools. But since those who were admitted would be attending schools
where they were very likely to do well, fewer would fail or drop out. In the
end, more would pass the bar exam on their first try (1,896 versus 1,567
successful African-American first-time test takers among the graduating
class of 2004) and more would eventually pass the bar (2,150 versus 1,981
among that same class) than under current admissions practices.
Sander's research was criticized by proponents of race-preferential
admissions on the ground that it was just one study, and Sander agreed that
more research would be desirable. He used the best and most recent data
available at the time, and his calculations have been verified by others,
but surely confirming the results with a different and more recent database
would have been useful. In a report issued in 2007, the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights urged grant-making agencies to fund research into this issue
and requested that state bar associations cooperate with this research.
Unfortunately, something closer to the opposite has happened. In order to
confirm his initial findings, Sander assembled an ideologically diverse team
of investigators and sought data from the State Bar of California. Urged
not to cooperate by some of the very same people who had previously
complained that Sander needed more evidence, the state bar denied the team
access. It didn't matter that Gerald Reynolds, chairman of the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, flew to San Francisco to ask personally for the
state bar's cooperation. It didn't matter that the data had been cheerfully
shared with other researchers. The California bar wanted no part of this
important research. A court battle is now underway.
Meanwhile, Sander and University of Arizona law professor Jane Yakowitz
Bambauer have taken to examining one the most dearly held beliefs of
affirmative-action advocates — that enrolling in the most
prestigious school one can get into is the key to success. This premise,
central to affirmative action, turns out to be false: In predicting future
income, getting good grades in law school matters more than getting into a
top law school. And as Sander and Bambauer demonstrate in "The Secret of My
Success: How Status, Eliteness and School Performance Shape Legal Careers,"
this is true for law students generally, not just under-represented
minorities.
Put differently, aspiring lawyers who tear their hair out to get into the
most prestigious law school possible — figuring they can just
cruise to a law degree once they get to campus — are making a
mistake. They need to be putting at least as much effort into excelling once
they are in school. If students at Harvard don't work hard, their
professional stars may be eclipsed by lawyers with similar entering
credentials who attended lesser law schools and made better grades.
Again and again, the results are the same, no matter what the area of study:
Attending a highly competitive school is a good thing. But so is getting
good grades. Indeed, getting good grades is somewhat more important than
attending a prestigious school. A public policy that ensures that African-
American and Hispanic students will disproportionately attend schools where
their grades are likely to be worse than their classmates' thus works to the
minority students' disadvantage.
THE SHAPE OF MISINFORMATION
To be sure, those who wish to ignore the mismatch literature have been given
a convenient excuse to do so: the influential 1998 book defending
affirmative action, The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of
Considering Race in College and University Admissions, written by Bowen and
Bok. Their book calculated that even black men with combined SAT scores of
less than 1000 — low for elite schools — who
attend top-tier schools like Princeton out-earn similarly credentialed
students who attend schools like Pennsylvania State.
The book received an astonishing level of attention when it was published.
Fawning editorials appeared in many newspapers. The New York Times announced
that it "flatly refute[d]" the arguments of critics of race-preferential
admissions. Newsweek's Ellis Cose commented that the book was the "most
ambitious study to date of the effects of affirmative action in higher
education" and "an important corrective to conservative propaganda." Some of
the commentary specifically addressed the issue of mismatch: Harvard
University sociologist Nathan Glazer argued in the Washington Post that it
was now "clear" that worries over mismatch were misplaced. The Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette editorialized that the notion that race-based admissions
policies have hurt African-American students "is one that can be dismissed."
For many reasons, however, the methodology used in The Shape of the River is
seriously flawed. For example, Bowen and Bok took account only of SAT
scores, overlooking other academic credentials like high-school rank. One
cannot assume that a student at Princeton with a given SAT score is the
equivalent of a student with the same score at Penn State. There is an
excellent chance that the first student has a substantially better high-
school GPA or other distinctions in his favor; that is one reason he is at
Princeton instead of Penn State. Indeed, Ivy League presidents like Bowen
and Bok are constantly making this point themselves: Their schools reject
many applicants with stratospheric SAT scores in favor of applicants they
believe show greater academic promise in other ways.
Even using flawed methodology, however, it is difficult to avoid the
evidence of affirmative action's failure. The Shape of the River's own
figures show that black men with SAT scores between 1000 and 1099 and black
women with SAT scores between 1100 and 1199 are likely to earn more if they
stay away from the most elite schools.
Why might that be? Buried in book's appendices is a more sophisticated
analysis that attempts to explain how various factors influence the
subsequent earnings of black graduates of selective colleges or universities
. Each such factor's effect was measured, including (to a limited extent) a
student's high-school rank and whether his college grades put him at the top
, middle, or bottom third of his class. The authors purport to show that
attending a school like Princeton rather than a school like Penn State adds
to the income of black students. They appear oblivious, however, to the
stunning point made by their own figures, throughout the different
permutations of their analysis: College grades generally contribute more.
Imagine two black males with identical SAT scores, both in the top 10% of
their high-school classes, and both from middle-class families. Only their
colleges are different. Bowen and Bok convincingly demonstrate that if the
two have the same college major and similar grades, the one who attends
Princeton will earn considerably more than the one who attends Penn State.
But what if they don't have similar grades? By the authors' own calculations
, it is better to be a black male at Penn State in the top third of the
class than in the bottom third at Princeton. The increased earnings the Penn
State student gets from high grades are worth almost twice the increased
earnings from attending Princeton. And the boost in earnings he would get
from majoring in natural science rather than the humanities — a
more achievable goal at Penn State — is a whopping $49,537 per
year.
If one's class rank and major were unrelated to the selectivity level of one
's college, then it would be perfectly sensible for the authors to celebrate
the finding that, all other things being equal, black males get an earnings
boost from attending Princeton rather than Penn State. But they are not
unrelated. For students who would not have been admitted but for racial
preferences, the chances of being in the top third of the class are remote.
The only question is whether a student who attends Princeton and winds up in
the bottom third of the class would likely have been in the top third of
Penn State. And the answer to that question, at least in many cases, is yes.
Consider, for example, a black male with combined math and verbal SAT
scores of 1300 (out of a possible 1600) who just missed being in the top 10%
of his high-school class. If he attends Penn State, his SAT scores will put
him exactly at the 75th percentile in the 2011 entering class (using
figures from U.S. News & World Report). That would give him an excellent
shot at earning grades in the top third of his class, or graduating with a
natural-science degree, or both. If this student instead enrolls at
Princeton, however, his SAT scores will put him 110 points below the 25th
percentile for that school, likely making his academic standing very tenuous
. If he wants to maximize his earnings upon graduation, the choice is
obvious.
How could Bowen and Bok have missed the import of their own research? The
answer may lie partly in the fact that the book was rushed to press in 1998
just two months before Election Day. On the ballot that year was Washington
State's Initiative 200, a clone of California's Proposition 209, which
prohibited race-preferential admissions policies in state colleges and
universities. Supporters of race-preferential admissions hoped that The
Shape of the River would change voters' minds about the desirability of such
prohibitions.
Initiative 200 passed anyway, but The Shape of the River slowed the momentum
of state popular initiatives in this area. Perhaps more important, The
Shape of the River was cited by and seems to have heavily influenced Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor in her opinion for the majority in Grutter. The book
and its influence thus point to the troubling implications of using social-
science research in constitutional analysis, particularly on the subject of
race.
SOCIAL SCIENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION
Brown v. Board of Education may be the most important Supreme Court decision
in the area of race in the past century. In arriving at its conclusion in
1954 that "separate but equal" school systems are inherently unequal, the
Court relied in part on the now-famous doll experiments of Kenneth and Mamie
Clark, intended to test the self-perception of young African-American
children brought up in the Jim Crow South. The Clarks showed the children
two dolls that were identical except for skin and hair color: One doll
represented a blonde white person and the other a black person. When asked
which of the two dolls was the nice one, which looked bad, which was the
more attractive color, and which was more appealing to play with, the
African-American children showed a consistent preference for the white doll.
Constitutional scholars look back at the doll experiments and ask, "What if
the children had preferred the black doll?" What if it turned out that the
children's preference for the white doll had nothing to do with low self-
esteem caused by Jim Crow segregation? Would that have made the case for
Brown v. Board of Education weaker? Should the constitutional right to equal
protection turn on the latest social-science research?
The answer to these latter questions should be, "Of course not." The
Constitution demands equal protection for all persons regardless of whether
they can demonstrate through social-science research that they have been
harmed by some law or policy or social practice. The Clarks' doll
experiments were certainly interesting; given the uncertainties of
litigation, the attorneys for the Brown plaintiffs were wise to bring them
to the attention of the Court. But the Court probably should not have given
the impression that its constitutional analysis might be shaped by the
results of such an experiment.
If Brown should not have relied on the doll experiments, does that mean the
Court should not take social-science research into account in rendering
decisions in litigation over race-preferential admissions policies? Some
have suggested as much, arguing that the research showing the harm done by
race-preferential admissions should be off-limits.
As it happens, though, the Court has already taken social-science research
into account — and in Grutter, it almost certainly took bad
social-science research into account. In concluding that race-preferential
admissions policies were beneficial to minority students, and that the Court
should therefore make an exception to the otherwise overwhelming
presumption against racially discriminatory laws and policies, Justice O'
Connor's citation to The Shape of the River was explicit. But even without
such a citation, it is clear that the Court's decision was premised on a
belief that race-preferential admissions were helping, or at least not
hurting, African-American and Hispanic students.
Of course, under Grutter, increased campus diversity was said to benefit all
students, not just under-represented minorities. Consequently, racial
discrimination to obtain that benefit was deemed permissible. But minority
students are not public utilities; their futures should not be sacrificed to
serve broader goals of social engineering. And it is difficult to imagine a
college or university knowingly employing race-preferential admissions to
give white and Asian students an advantage at the expense of African-
American and Hispanic students. The Grutter decision thus would have been
unthinkable in the absence of a strong conviction by the Court that
affirmative action was providing minority students with a substantial
advantage, not a disadvantage.
Now it is becoming evident that it was all a mistake. The strong
constitutional presumption against race discrimination in all its forms,
which must be firm and unchanging to be effective, was laid aside for no
good reason.
To compare this to Brown and the doll experiments, one would have to imagine
that Brown had come out the other way — in favor of racially
segregated schools — because the Court had some reason to
believe that Jim Crow was benefiting all students. If later, more
sophisticated research had exposed that belief as erroneous, it would be
incumbent upon the Supreme Court to return to the principle that race
discrimination should not be tolerated.
It remains to be seen what the Court will do in Fisher. It seems unlikely
that its decision will cite or discuss the mismatch literature, and that is
as it should be. But that does not mean that this body of research will not,
or should not, affect the Court's thinking. The mismatch literature is
showing Grutter to be a well-meaning but ultimately misguided deviation from
what otherwise had become accepted principle — that race
discrimination should not be tolerated. Perhaps in the future, the Court
will not be so flexible with its principles.
Gail Heriot is a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a
member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
n***p
发帖数: 7668
2
所以说,黑孩子们去个Community College就行了.

【在 L********r 的大作中提到】
: 下面的文章要读一读。
: 文章摘要如下:鸡头>凤尾原则是被广泛观察到的现象所支持的。同一入学新生,相比
: 于去与自己水平相当的大学,选择去比自己水平高很多的藤校是很不明智的。所以AA造
: 成对黑青年“毁人>诲人”。
: 如斯成立,则亚裔家长推自个的娃也须小心。如家长推了10年娃也没学会自推,那靠补
: 习班、凑活动经验上了藤校也是去给牛娃当分母做尾巴去了,也许不如去一州校帮助大
: 。学费省下来还可以投资给娃当个天使基金啥的。
: 发信人: yariguy (yari guy), 信区: Parenting
: 标 题: Re: Support Asian American students!!!
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jan 21 10:52:51 2013, 美东)

L********r
发帖数: 758
3
没看到哪里说到这个了。应该是去个和个人能力匹配的学校。有黑孩子厉害的,就去藤
校拼呗。

【在 n***p 的大作中提到】
: 所以说,黑孩子们去个Community College就行了.
n***p
发帖数: 7668
4
我就是觉得有些黑孩子上的大学确实跟他们的能力不匹配,明显比其他人差一大截,
而且怎么教也学不会.

【在 L********r 的大作中提到】
: 没看到哪里说到这个了。应该是去个和个人能力匹配的学校。有黑孩子厉害的,就去藤
: 校拼呗。

r*f
发帖数: 39119
5
比如michelle obama兄妹

【在 L********r 的大作中提到】
: 没看到哪里说到这个了。应该是去个和个人能力匹配的学校。有黑孩子厉害的,就去藤
: 校拼呗。

v*********n
发帖数: 3983
6
言之有理。能力一般去太好的学校,就算勉强进去了也很累,成绩总是排倒数第一对孩
子的性格和自信心打击很大的。
c***c
发帖数: 6234
7
那等孩子出来和周围一对比呢。

【在 v*********n 的大作中提到】
: 言之有理。能力一般去太好的学校,就算勉强进去了也很累,成绩总是排倒数第一对孩
: 子的性格和自信心打击很大的。

s*********e
发帖数: 4475
8
这不影响他们当总统或者总统老婆。

【在 n***p 的大作中提到】
: 我就是觉得有些黑孩子上的大学确实跟他们的能力不匹配,明显比其他人差一大截,
: 而且怎么教也学不会.

t*******r
发帖数: 22634
9
这其实是看具体娃本身。基于达尔文物种多样性原则,肯定是有些娃长大后
喜欢选择当鸡头,有些娃长大后喜欢选择当凤尾,大部分娃长大后可能喜欢
选择中不溜秋。。。但是虎妈一旦跳出来。。。让俺先。。。闪。。。

【在 c***c 的大作中提到】
: 那等孩子出来和周围一对比呢。
v*********n
发帖数: 3983
10
已经废了。

【在 c***c 的大作中提到】
: 那等孩子出来和周围一对比呢。
相关主题
AA及大学招生亚裔被歧视:抛砖引玉由加州SCA5看AA平权法案及亚裔的应对策略 (转载)
除了德州,还有什么学校在招收亚裔大学学生时提高分数线?Re: 哈佛诉讼案对亚裔平权的深远影响及现阶段普通亚裔的参与 (
呼应一下raki: O编辑总结:由加州SCA5看AA平权法案及亚裔的应对策略科普贴:高法对AA案子的判决及其对华裔学生的影响 (转载)
进入Parenting版参与讨论
L********r
发帖数: 758
11
我觉得和个人偏好选择关系不大,有可能是完全没意识到当凤尾时间长了伤身。环境导
致行为,行为又成为习惯,如果自己再意识不到改变所处的环境,那就被环境给废了。
所以开始看着好像沾了名校的光环,占了便宜,其实是被名校consume了。试想,如果
名校少了那20%的非西裔,则要么是藤校成为了亚裔的培养基地,要么是让破格选
入的白人(比如校友后代)当了凤尾;如此那些校友、捐款人如何能干。如此说来,选
进一些垫底的来拉bell curve的形状实乃是上上策,既赚了公平之名又捞了藏拙之实。
哈哈,以上皆我戏言,政治上实在是大错特错了。

【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 这其实是看具体娃本身。基于达尔文物种多样性原则,肯定是有些娃长大后
: 喜欢选择当鸡头,有些娃长大后喜欢选择当凤尾,大部分娃长大后可能喜欢
: 选择中不溜秋。。。但是虎妈一旦跳出来。。。让俺先。。。闪。。。

t*******r
发帖数: 22634
12
从一个角度看,您这个说得非常有道理。
但从另一个角度说,凤尾是相对某一个具体的衡量标准而言。对于本科以及本科
之前,这个衡量标准基本上是单一标准的标准化考试,有着单一标准的凤尾。
但是本科之后或者踏上社会,衡量标准发生巨大变化,同时出现多元化标准。
对某个标准而言的凤尾,另一个标准而言可能是鸡头。所以凤尾本身成为了一
个模糊的/似是而非的东东。一只对于标准化考试而言的凤尾,搞不好实际上是
只鸡头;另一只善于对付标准化考试鸡头,实际上也有可能是一只凤尾。
所以这个最终还是取决于娃,凤尾也可以很快乐,如果是娃的天性,又能从暂时
的凤尾里获取东东。。。
实际上业余钢琴考级也差不多。业余考级的标准是按考级标准放翻考级的曲目,
职业音乐人的标准是。。。从听众那边骗美刀。。。不完全是一个标准的说。。。
。。。但是回文里有家长的目的是把美眉骗上床。。。我塞。。。丫完全不是
一个标准。。。让俺再次顺手埋汰古典钢琴一把。。。

【在 L********r 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得和个人偏好选择关系不大,有可能是完全没意识到当凤尾时间长了伤身。环境导
: 致行为,行为又成为习惯,如果自己再意识不到改变所处的环境,那就被环境给废了。
: 所以开始看着好像沾了名校的光环,占了便宜,其实是被名校consume了。试想,如果
: 名校少了那20%的非西裔,则要么是藤校成为了亚裔的培养基地,要么是让破格选
: 入的白人(比如校友后代)当了凤尾;如此那些校友、捐款人如何能干。如此说来,选
: 进一些垫底的来拉bell curve的形状实乃是上上策,既赚了公平之名又捞了藏拙之实。
: 哈哈,以上皆我戏言,政治上实在是大错特错了。

L********r
发帖数: 758
13
咱说的就是本科毕业以前啊。按原文说的,很多垫底时间长了self-esteem没了就换去
模糊专业了,毕业出来出路不够好。也许一直坚持下来也行,不过确实没有走适合自己
learning-curve的ramp效率高。
当然你说的毕业后衡量标准多样化是对的,可是如果真是自己的self evaluation
system被环境整烂了,再恢复就难了,更不要说还有被歧视了的念头在心里捣乱。

【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 从一个角度看,您这个说得非常有道理。
: 但从另一个角度说,凤尾是相对某一个具体的衡量标准而言。对于本科以及本科
: 之前,这个衡量标准基本上是单一标准的标准化考试,有着单一标准的凤尾。
: 但是本科之后或者踏上社会,衡量标准发生巨大变化,同时出现多元化标准。
: 对某个标准而言的凤尾,另一个标准而言可能是鸡头。所以凤尾本身成为了一
: 个模糊的/似是而非的东东。一只对于标准化考试而言的凤尾,搞不好实际上是
: 只鸡头;另一只善于对付标准化考试鸡头,实际上也有可能是一只凤尾。
: 所以这个最终还是取决于娃,凤尾也可以很快乐,如果是娃的天性,又能从暂时
: 的凤尾里获取东东。。。
: 实际上业余钢琴考级也差不多。业余考级的标准是按考级标准放翻考级的曲目,

F**********y
发帖数: 10265
14
明显政治不正确啊
还是有一些黑人孩子很聪明又肯用功的

【在 n***p 的大作中提到】
: 我就是觉得有些黑孩子上的大学确实跟他们的能力不匹配,明显比其他人差一大截,
: 而且怎么教也学不会.

n***p
发帖数: 7668
15
是政治不正确啊,所以大家都心照不宣啊. 我只能在BBS上这么说啊,
要是在学校里跟系主任这么说,还不立马给开除了?要是拿着大喇叭在
大街上说,还不立马给打成蜂窝?

【在 F**********y 的大作中提到】
: 明显政治不正确啊
: 还是有一些黑人孩子很聪明又肯用功的

z**n
发帖数: 22303
16
人说的是有些黑孩子,连这也政治不正确的话,我只能说政治是个DSB.

【在 F**********y 的大作中提到】
: 明显政治不正确啊
: 还是有一些黑人孩子很聪明又肯用功的

n***p
发帖数: 7668
17
政治就是个DSB.因为我说的是"黑"孩子,那就是政治不正确了,要是说"有些孩子",
估计还有回旋的余地.
有一次我改考卷的时候,跟一些老教授们聊天,我问他们,“What if I don't give
the students partial credits?” 他们说,“That is politically
incorrect.” 这其实就是Bullshit。 否则我们为什么还有选择题?

【在 z**n 的大作中提到】
: 人说的是有些黑孩子,连这也政治不正确的话,我只能说政治是个DSB.
q****6
发帖数: 837
18
mark
L********r
发帖数: 758
19
哈哈,要是挑刺的话,你这个政治上还不够正确,因为听着就像说黑人小孩聪明用功的
是个例一样。一定要补上“黑人小孩里聪明的比例和其他种族一样多”。

【在 F**********y 的大作中提到】
: 明显政治不正确啊
: 还是有一些黑人孩子很聪明又肯用功的

L********r
发帖数: 758
20
现在这楼就局限在黑小孩了,没人争论我这个引申啊?看来爬藤的家长都是对娃自信满满
的么。

【在 L********r 的大作中提到】
: 下面的文章要读一读。
: 文章摘要如下:鸡头>凤尾原则是被广泛观察到的现象所支持的。同一入学新生,相比
: 于去与自己水平相当的大学,选择去比自己水平高很多的藤校是很不明智的。所以AA造
: 成对黑青年“毁人>诲人”。
: 如斯成立,则亚裔家长推自个的娃也须小心。如家长推了10年娃也没学会自推,那靠补
: 习班、凑活动经验上了藤校也是去给牛娃当分母做尾巴去了,也许不如去一州校帮助大
: 。学费省下来还可以投资给娃当个天使基金啥的。
: 发信人: yariguy (yari guy), 信区: Parenting
: 标 题: Re: Support Asian American students!!!
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jan 21 10:52:51 2013, 美东)

相关主题
被 BLUM 钦点的起诉哈佛和 UNC 的原告再论AA
fisher案介绍, 含大量私货,下流,恶毒,不喜勿入哈佛大学的录取制度和美国最高法院的渊源
我邻居的心酸经历,女人何苦为难女人?斯卡利亚大法官的去世敲响亚裔平等教育权益的警钟 (转载)
进入Parenting版参与讨论
i**e
发帖数: 19242
21
我想了想
都有pros/cons,可能最后还是要看孩子的个性
做鸡头的话,比较有机会得到学校里的资源,受到教授学校的重视
但是如果学校里大多数孩子的素质差太多的话
孩子是不是会有找不到组织的感觉呢?
做鸡尾的话,得到的机会几乎就是零了吧?
对于上大学的学生来说,这个对个人自信心到底会有多大的影响呢?
但是一直跟素质比较高的同学们一起混,会不会很受益呢?
还不要说学校的“素质”?
说来说去
还是考验孩子自己的内心的定力啊
n***y
发帖数: 33
22
好像两边都有道理。如果为自己选,我选更好的学校。在国内读名校,所以才有出国的
念头。在美读研也觉得好学校确实教的好。
但是,在这里的学校里遇上的黑人个例,确实水平偏低。印象较深的是一个黑人
faculty,听了他的报告后心想,这人居然也混上这么好学校的教职,多半是照顾上来的
,不知道他会不会耽误学生。所以在心里留下个黑人因为会受照顾,所以水平一定不行
的印象。这也是 an unintended consequence of AA.
L********r
发帖数: 758
23
你说的好坏取决于孩子的定力或悟性是有可能的。只是大部分孩子在上大学的时候还完
全想不了这么透,至少我十七岁时没戏,被忽悠进去的可能性更大。

【在 i**e 的大作中提到】
: 我想了想
: 都有pros/cons,可能最后还是要看孩子的个性
: 做鸡头的话,比较有机会得到学校里的资源,受到教授学校的重视
: 但是如果学校里大多数孩子的素质差太多的话
: 孩子是不是会有找不到组织的感觉呢?
: 做鸡尾的话,得到的机会几乎就是零了吧?
: 对于上大学的学生来说,这个对个人自信心到底会有多大的影响呢?
: 但是一直跟素质比较高的同学们一起混,会不会很受益呢?
: 还不要说学校的“素质”?
: 说来说去

i******e
发帖数: 1720
24
你是指凤尾,不是鸡尾吧 :)
物以类聚,人以群分。只是不知凤头是不是愿意带着凤尾一起混?

【在 i**e 的大作中提到】
: 我想了想
: 都有pros/cons,可能最后还是要看孩子的个性
: 做鸡头的话,比较有机会得到学校里的资源,受到教授学校的重视
: 但是如果学校里大多数孩子的素质差太多的话
: 孩子是不是会有找不到组织的感觉呢?
: 做鸡尾的话,得到的机会几乎就是零了吧?
: 对于上大学的学生来说,这个对个人自信心到底会有多大的影响呢?
: 但是一直跟素质比较高的同学们一起混,会不会很受益呢?
: 还不要说学校的“素质”?
: 说来说去

t*******r
发帖数: 22634
25
您说的有道理,在满地白色恐怖的白区腹地中,还能保持一颗赤诚的无产阶级革命理想
之心的凤尾,估计是少数。。。

【在 L********r 的大作中提到】
: 你说的好坏取决于孩子的定力或悟性是有可能的。只是大部分孩子在上大学的时候还完
: 全想不了这么透,至少我十七岁时没戏,被忽悠进去的可能性更大。

t*******r
发帖数: 22634
26
调酒师老大您好。。。

【在 i******e 的大作中提到】
: 你是指凤尾,不是鸡尾吧 :)
: 物以类聚,人以群分。只是不知凤头是不是愿意带着凤尾一起混?

L********r
发帖数: 758
27
国内又不太一样,录取时就没有族群这么明显的区别,大家进去时水平都差不多。而且
要照顾,都是照顾优势人群,比如北京上海的录取分反而低,于是就算academic有点劣
视,社会、经济及心理优势都帮着扳平了。再加上大学的严进宽出,一般的都混过来了。

【在 n***y 的大作中提到】
: 好像两边都有道理。如果为自己选,我选更好的学校。在国内读名校,所以才有出国的
: 念头。在美读研也觉得好学校确实教的好。
: 但是,在这里的学校里遇上的黑人个例,确实水平偏低。印象较深的是一个黑人
: faculty,听了他的报告后心想,这人居然也混上这么好学校的教职,多半是照顾上来的
: ,不知道他会不会耽误学生。所以在心里留下个黑人因为会受照顾,所以水平一定不行
: 的印象。这也是 an unintended consequence of AA.

i******e
发帖数: 1720
28
哈哈,我还楞了一下,你反应太快了,我都没想到 :)
只是寻思着,不是鸡头凤尾吗,咋演变成鸡头鸡尾了。 呵呵。

【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 调酒师老大您好。。。
i**e
发帖数: 19242
29
哈哈哈
真是哦
你看我连凤尾都不敢想,一哆嗦,就成了鸡尾了 :)

【在 i******e 的大作中提到】
: 哈哈,我还楞了一下,你反应太快了,我都没想到 :)
: 只是寻思着,不是鸡头凤尾吗,咋演变成鸡头鸡尾了。 呵呵。

i**e
发帖数: 19242
30
所以呢,对大多数人来说,上自己能上的”最好“的学校咯
受最好的影响?

【在 L********r 的大作中提到】
: 你说的好坏取决于孩子的定力或悟性是有可能的。只是大部分孩子在上大学的时候还完
: 全想不了这么透,至少我十七岁时没戏,被忽悠进去的可能性更大。

相关主题
**************科普啥是AA**************** (转载)藤娃谈AA
转载:Ivy League Admissions Are a Sham: Confessions of a Harvard GatekeeperAA其实对亚裔并非不利
Support Asian American students!!!Reflect on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's wisdom
进入Parenting版参与讨论
L********r
发帖数: 758
31
不确定,不过这肯定是现实中大多数人的选择。只是如果该文章中的论据成立,则
hindsight来看,被大幅优惠拽上“最好”学校的学生很可能做了一个不明智的选择。

【在 i**e 的大作中提到】
: 所以呢,对大多数人来说,上自己能上的”最好“的学校咯
: 受最好的影响?

i**e
发帖数: 19242
32
反正我们老中的孩子也不会是“被拽上去”入藤的
不用替“被拽上去”的操心吧?:)

【在 L********r 的大作中提到】
: 不确定,不过这肯定是现实中大多数人的选择。只是如果该文章中的论据成立,则
: hindsight来看,被大幅优惠拽上“最好”学校的学生很可能做了一个不明智的选择。

L********r
发帖数: 758
33
我开篇就说了,老中的孩子不会是被学校拽上去的,但有些可能是被一心爬藤的老爸老
妈拽上去的。一旦上了大学开始需要自推,是否会被consume呢?

【在 i**e 的大作中提到】
: 反正我们老中的孩子也不会是“被拽上去”入藤的
: 不用替“被拽上去”的操心吧?:)

p********5
发帖数: 7433
34
我其实是看到那个郭衡的死,挺难受的。说实话,推孩子到那样的环境,我不原意。我
的想法就是,在附近读个大学。我们附近也有好的私立大学,还有一些公立大学。开开
心心过,可能还是会选理工科。
当然他有能力去好的大学,他去了也不会很累的。没有能力,就算了。但是,有人会说
,你不推,怎么知道?
把书读好,多参加活动。把我们原来被应试教育忽悠的时间,多出来去参加宝宝喜欢的
活动。我真心觉得,如果不是为了出国,读当地最好的大学与一个上海大学,出路没有
太多区别。
i******e
发帖数: 1720
35
这好像也要看学生自身的人格特质,很难一概而论。有些人遇强则强,遇弱则弱。有些
反而是遇强则弱,遇弱则强。觉得还是要家长了解自己的孩子,当然孩子自己能了解自
己最好,选择能最大限度激发学生潜能的学校才是最明智。

【在 L********r 的大作中提到】
: 我开篇就说了,老中的孩子不会是被学校拽上去的,但有些可能是被一心爬藤的老爸老
: 妈拽上去的。一旦上了大学开始需要自推,是否会被consume呢?

i**e
发帖数: 19242
36
恩,这就又回到了
知己知彼 上面去了 :)

【在 i******e 的大作中提到】
: 这好像也要看学生自身的人格特质,很难一概而论。有些人遇强则强,遇弱则弱。有些
: 反而是遇强则弱,遇弱则强。觉得还是要家长了解自己的孩子,当然孩子自己能了解自
: 己最好,选择能最大限度激发学生潜能的学校才是最明智。

i**e
发帖数: 19242
37
恩,硬拽上去的,孩子自己大概不会很happy,但是呢,我想IQ/能力还是有的
孩子自己的喜好意愿被压抑的过多了
要么孩子反抗叛逆,要么自己跟自己过不去

【在 L********r 的大作中提到】
: 我开篇就说了,老中的孩子不会是被学校拽上去的,但有些可能是被一心爬藤的老爸老
: 妈拽上去的。一旦上了大学开始需要自推,是否会被consume呢?

L********r
发帖数: 758
38
除了孩子自推这个上藤校需要考虑的因素外,对于大部分老中家长还有一个ROI的因素
需要研究。基于以下link,私立学费从1978到2008年间涨了10倍,inflation涨了3.25倍
。可是如果我们回头看看科技发展带来的便利,本科那些知识的获得成本其实是成倍的
下降的。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition_in_United_States
当我们再看看全美收入的增长后,就有点意思了。先看看这两个地方的数据,似乎top
1%收入在adjust inflation后和私立学费增速差不多。
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=957
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_St
以下这只是我基于数据瞎猜的:送娃进入私立对于这些富有人群是不用想的决定,花销
对应他们的收入也是固定的一个比例,肯定负担的起也不影响财富积累(全加起来现在
也就20几万)。感觉私立学校的学费也是有意按他们收入的增长速度调整的。但是对于
把获得知识和能力作为主要目标的中产家庭,私校的成本已经大大超过了它所能提供的
价值了,如同富太太的hermes包。如果孩子进去只是读好了书或者主要时间用来读书,
那已经亏大了。感觉只有心理极成熟的娃,争取4年建立几个优质connection才有可能
赚回投资,获得decent的ROI。当然不差钱的老中家长,不在讨论范围,毕竟也就两辆
跑车钱而已。
t*******r
发帖数: 22634
39
硬拽上去的,自推能力估计够呛。
不要说自推,基本的知识获取和应用的能力可能都不行。硬拽上去的办法通常
是钻标准化考试系统的漏洞。娃的时间是有限的,另外还有 important
developmental stage 的问题。想要钻营考试和发展实打实的能力两不误,
除非娃本身素质够强。这种情况毕竟是少数。

【在 L********r 的大作中提到】
: 我开篇就说了,老中的孩子不会是被学校拽上去的,但有些可能是被一心爬藤的老爸老
: 妈拽上去的。一旦上了大学开始需要自推,是否会被consume呢?

t*******r
发帖数: 22634
40
IQ/能力不好说,因为首先是标准化考试是有无数漏洞可以钻的,另外发展的
能力也可能主要是对付考试的能力,比如考前三天突击,考过就忘记的那种。。。

【在 i**e 的大作中提到】
: 恩,硬拽上去的,孩子自己大概不会很happy,但是呢,我想IQ/能力还是有的
: 孩子自己的喜好意愿被压抑的过多了
: 要么孩子反抗叛逆,要么自己跟自己过不去

1 (共1页)
进入Parenting版参与讨论
相关主题
哈佛大学的录取制度和美国最高法院的渊源望提高亚裔高校录取率的“法律之友”已递交最高法院
斯卡利亚大法官的去世敲响亚裔平等教育权益的警钟 (转载)AA及大学招生亚裔被歧视:抛砖引玉
**************科普啥是AA**************** (转载)除了德州,还有什么学校在招收亚裔大学学生时提高分数线?
转载:Ivy League Admissions Are a Sham: Confessions of a Harvard Gatekeeper呼应一下raki: O编辑总结:由加州SCA5看AA平权法案及亚裔的应对策略
Support Asian American students!!!由加州SCA5看AA平权法案及亚裔的应对策略 (转载)
藤娃谈AARe: 哈佛诉讼案对亚裔平权的深远影响及现阶段普通亚裔的参与 (
AA其实对亚裔并非不利科普贴:高法对AA案子的判决及其对华裔学生的影响 (转载)
Reflect on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's wisdom被 BLUM 钦点的起诉哈佛和 UNC 的原告
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: 8197话题: students话题: african话题: american话题: more