91–100 of 217 posts
A contrary viewpoint: After studying a number of different cultures and backgrounds and histories, I'm generally an admirer of the school of parenting laid out by Chua. Well, I think some of the more insulting/demeaning/negative-reinforcement isn't so great, but the overall focus on achievement and duty as superior to having fun... I do respect that. I'll explain why - I used to think the opposite until I read Andre…
A contrary viewpoint: After studying a number of different cultures and backgrounds and histories, I'm generally an admirer of the school of parenting laid out by Chua. Well, I think some of the more insulting/demeaning/negative-reinforcement isn't so great, but the overall focus on achievement and duty as superior to having fun... I do respect that. I'll explain why - I used to think the opposite until I read Andre…
I was raised like this. My mom showed me no real love, nor did my family. I buckled under the pressure and when the time came for any real emotional support, they abandoned me in an attempt to get me to "try harder." I never forgave them and I don't talk to them any more. In the end, regardless of how they felt or their intentions, I was made out to be nothing more than an ornament, a product for the glory of the fam…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The asian kid with a 1560 SAT and state violin awards (probably) isn't getting into Harvard" 18% of Harvard students are Asian, so yeah, he (probably) would. And, that's with a long-standing policy of "ethnic cleansing" in Asian matriculation[1]. [1] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/2/19/affirmatives-of-...
That doesn't really nullify his point - what percentage of applicants were Asian?
But, to answer your question, 23% of total applicants are Asian-American, and 18% of total accepted are Asian-American[1]. So, yeah, little Johnny Violin is likely getting into Harvard.
[1]http://www.asianam.org/2006.htm
PS, yes, my math was totally mucked up. Thanks for pointing that out :D It should be around 8% acceptance, which is actually less than the acceptance rate overall. Hmmm... so I guess they are rejecting them in droves.
A contrary viewpoint: After studying a number of different cultures and backgrounds and histories, I'm generally an admirer of the school of parenting laid out by Chua. Well, I think some of the more insulting/demeaning/negative-reinforcement isn't so great, but the overall focus on achievement and duty as superior to having fun... I do respect that. I'll explain why - I used to think the opposite until I read Andre…
I attended computer engineering college in India, and here it gets extremely competitive. You've got gazillions of students fighting over a college seat not because they love programming or because they love software, but because being a computer engineer is key to financial success. So, they slog over their grade 12 scores and IIT-JEEs and CETs, and secure a seat.
Once they get into college, it's all about getting 'distinctions' - grades higher than 66%. Consistent results mean they get placed in-campus and escape the monotony and the soul-drubbing experience of a fresher's jobhunt.
And what then? It's all about the next appraisal, the next promotion, the next overseas opportunity. Better pay means better marriage prospects, a better lifestyle and a better social circle, whatever their definition of the latter term may be.
And in this pursuit of lifestyle comfort and material excellence, the only time they really, really care about code quality or software design is when it has a real and direct bearing on these prospects.
And that bugs me - not the pursuit of material comforts, but the relegation of software craftmanship to a second order of priority. I have an inkling that in their upbringing, the economic and social aspects of success were ALL that that was defined. Often to the detriment of every other aspect of quality. And it is this unbalanced focus that I take issue with.
A friend of mine, a mother of a gifted 5th grader wrestling with similar issues of parental control as Amy Chua, shared the WSJ article with me today. It reminded me of something Steven Pinker writes about in one of his books. In his book, he breaks down the work of Judith Rich Harris ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Rich_Harris ) to this formula: Genes have 50% influence over a child's development, peers 40%-50…
One wonders if you get any social development done at all before you significantly interact with a peer group using that formula. Here's a simple example: language. Pretty much everyone learns the basics of language from their parents before they toddle off to anything representing a peer group. Genes don't give you language. Is there a gene for French? What about English with a Mancunian accent? Apparently the ability to talk and what that conveys is somewhere between 0-10% of your development. Not to mention dozens of traits that are formed from the people you interact with daily for a couple of decades.
This range of numbers is simply the result of someone who has a hobby horse and has plucked figures out of the air to reinforce it.
A contrary viewpoint: After studying a number of different cultures and backgrounds and histories, I'm generally an admirer of the school of parenting laid out by Chua. Well, I think some of the more insulting/demeaning/negative-reinforcement isn't so great, but the overall focus on achievement and duty as superior to having fun... I do respect that. I'll explain why - I used to think the opposite until I read Andre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't really nullify his point - what percentage of applicants were Asian?
It really does nullify the point. If, as he claims, Harvard were trying to actively prevent the "asian clones" from invading, they would not allow a minority that makes up only 4% of the general population take almost up almost 1/5th of the slots, especially when you're underrepresenting whites, blacks, AND hispanics in the process (again, as a percentage of the general population). But, to answer your question, 23%…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to bring up a possibility, which is possibly controversial: a lot of these kids let themselves be trampled on by their parents. What are they supposed to do when they are beaten and locked out of the house for 24 hours with no food to eat? A not unrelated issue is the high rate of Asian American girls/women who refuse to date and marry Asian guys. It's so blindingly obvious as to why, I'm surprised anyon…
> What are they supposed to do when they are beaten and locked out of the house for 24 hours with no food to eat? Is this a serious question? If that happens, you call the cops like the victim of any other kind of assault. I have a friend who did this and had dad arrested and taken to court. It worked phenomenally well - she was never beat ever again - wonder why?! > Both of which presumably do not have a background…
Like any other assault, you need proof that abuse actually happened and you just didn't slip and fall. And how is a 8 year old kid supposed to know? Also what about the threats to bring them to China, free to beat them as much as they like, if they told the police? (And yes all this actually happened).
That's my point. Having an Asian significant other would be too much of a reminder of their shitty upbringing
Maybe that's true to a small extent, but the statistics from Okcupid shows that skin color is a much greater factor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't really nullify his point - what percentage of applicants were Asian?
It really does nullify the point. If, as he claims, Harvard were trying to actively prevent the "asian clones" from invading, they would not allow a minority that makes up only 4% of the general population take almost up almost 1/5th of the slots, especially when you're underrepresenting whites, blacks, AND hispanics in the process (again, as a percentage of the general population). But, to answer your question, 23%…
Imagine 100 people apply, 50 of which are Asian. 5 people get in, 1 of which is Asian. 20% of the total accepted are Asian, but the acceptance rate among Asians is 2% and 8% for other races.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not intended to exactly disagree: Many times when people cite the Maslow hierarchy, they often to take it as an axiom that the hierarchy is completely exactly how people work, and to lead better lives, people must go about fulfilling exactly these needs in this order. As someone who presumably subscribes to the hierarchy, would you agree that you seem fairly certain that this is how it works? And, if so, can…
No, I do not believe in a strict order imposed by the hierarchy. My view, which I've come to through studying both Maslow's Hierarchy and Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration, is that you're able to operate at the highest level you've so far achieved during your lifetime, even if one of the lower levels is missing. For example, one who had all five levels fulfilled during childhood will be capable of self-ac…