Tuesday, January 09, 2007

ASIANS AS THE NEW JEWS

When Jonathan Hu was going to high school in suburban Southern California, he rarely heard anyone speaking Chinese. But striding through campus on his way to class at the University of California, Berkeley, Mr. Hu hears Mandarin all the time, in plazas, cafeterias, classrooms, study halls, dorms and fast-food outlets. It is part of the soundtrack at this iconic university, along with Cantonese, English, Spanish and, of course, the perpetual jackhammers from the perpetual construction projects spurred by the perpetual fund drives.

This is in part because getting into Berkeley - U.S. News & World Report's top-ranked public university - has never been more daunting. There were 41,750 applicants for this year's freshman class of 4,157. Nearly half had a weighted grade point average of 4.0 or better (weighted for advanced courses). There is even grumbling from "the old Blues" - older alumni named for the school color - "who complain because their kids can't get in," says Gregg Thomson, director of the Office of Student Research.

Across the United States, at elite private and public universities, Asian enrollment is near an all-time high. Asian-Americans make up less than 5 percent of the population but typically make up 10 to 30 percent of students at the nation's best colleges:in 2005, the last year with across-the-board numbers, Asians made up 24 percent of the undergraduate population at Carnegie Mellon and at Stanford, 27 percent at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 14 percent at Yale and 13 percent at Princeton.

And according to advocates of race-neutral admissions policies, those numbers should be even higher. Asians have become the "new Jews," in the phrase of Daniel Golden, whose recent book, "The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way Into Elite Colleges - and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates," is a polemic against university admissions policies. Mr. Golden, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, is referring to evidence that, in the first half of the 20th century, Ivy League schools limited the number of Jewish students despite their outstanding academic records to maintain the primacy of upper-class Protestants. Today, he writes, "Asian-Americans are the odd group out, lacking racial preferences enjoyed by other minorities and the advantages of wealth and lineage mostly accrued by upper-class whites. Asians are typecast in college admissions offices as quasi-robots programmed by their parents to ace math and science."

As if to illustrate the point, a study released in October by the Center for Equal Opportunity, an advocacy group opposing race-conscious admissions, showed that in 2005 Asian-Americans were admitted to the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, at a much lower rate (54 percent) than black applicants (71 percent) and Hispanic applicants (79 percent) - despite median SAT scores that were 140 points higher than Hispanics and 240 points higher than blacks.

To force the issue on a legal level, a freshman at Yale filed a complaint in the fall with the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, contending he was denied admission to Princeton because he is Asian. The student, Jian Li, the son of Chinese immigrants in Livingston, N.J., had a perfect SAT score and near-perfect grades, including numerous Advanced Placement courses. "This is just a very, very egregious system," Mr. Li told me. "Asians are held to different standards simply because of their race."

To back his claim, he cites a 2005 study by Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung, both of Princeton, which concludes that if elite universities were to disregard race, Asians would fill nearly four of five spots that now go to blacks or Hispanics. Affirmative action has a neutral effect on the number of whites admitted, Mr. Li is arguing, but it raises the bar for Asians. The way Princeton selects its entering class, Mr. Li wrote in his complaint, "seems to be a calculated move by a historically white institution to protect its racial identity while at the same time maintaining a facade of progressivism."

Private institutions can commit to affirmative action, even with state bans, but federal money could be revoked if they are found to be discriminating. Mr. Li is seeking suspension of federal financial assistance to Princeton. "I'm not seeking anything personally," he says. "I'm happy at Yale. But I grew up thinking that in America race should not matter."

Admissions officials have long denied that they apply quotas. Nonetheless, race is important "to ensure a diverse student body," says Cass Cliatt, a Princeton spokeswoman. But, she adds, "Looking at the merits of race is not the same as the opposite" - discrimination.

Elite colleges like Princeton review the "total package," in her words, looking at special talents, extracurricular interests and socioeconomics - factors like whether the applicant is the first in the family to go to college or was raised by a single mother. "There's no set formula or standard for how we evaluate students," she says. High grades and test scores would seem to be merely a baseline. "We turned away approximately half of applicants with maximum scores on the SAT, all three sections," Ms. Cliatt says of the class Mr. Li would have joined.

In the last two months, the nation has seen a number of new challenges to racial engineering in schools. In November, the United States Supreme Court heard a case questioning the legality of using race in assigning students to public schools in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. Voters are also sending a message, having thrown out racial preferences in Michigan in November, following a lead taken by California, Texas, Florida and Washington. Last month, Ward Connerly, the architect of Proposition 209, announced his next potential targets for a ballot initiative, including Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska.

When I ask the chancellor at Berkeley, Robert J. Birgeneau, if there is a perfect demographic recipe on this campus that likes to think of itself as the world's finest public university - Harvard on the Hill - he demurs. "We are a meritocracy," he says. And - by law, he adds - the campus is supposed to be that way. If Asians made up, say, 70 percent of the campus, he insists, there would still be no attempt to reduce their numbers.

Asian enrollment at his campus actually began to ramp up well before affirmative action was banned. Historically, Asians have faced discrimination, with exclusion laws in the 1800s that kept them from voting, owning property or legally immigrating. Many were run out of West Coast towns by mobs. But by the 1970s and '80s, with a change in immigration laws, a surge in Asian arrivals began to change the complexion of California, and it was soon reflected in an overrepresentation at its top universities.

In the late 1980s, administrators appeared to be limiting Asian-American admissions, prompting a federal investigation. The result was an apology by the chancellor at the time, and a vow that there would be no cap on Asian enrollment. University administrators and teachers use anguished words to describe what has happened since. "I've heard from Latinos and blacks that Asians should not be considered a minority at all," says Elaine Kim, a professor of Asian-American studies at Berkeley. "What happened after they got rid of affirmative action has been a disaster - for blacks and Latinos. And for Asians it's been a disaster because some people think the campus has become all-Asian."

The diminishing number of African-Americans on campus is a consistent topic of discussion among black students. Some say they feel isolated, without a sense of community. "You really do feel like you stand out," says Armilla Staley, a second-year law student. In her freshman year, she was one of only nine African-Americans in a class of 265. "I'm almost always the only black person in my class," says Ms. Staley, who favors a return to some form of affirmative action. "Quite frankly, when you walk around campus, it's overwhelmingly Asian," she says. "I don't feel any tension between Asians and blacks, but I don't really identify with the Asian community as a minority either."

More here





MONTESSORI METHOD STILL STRUGGLING ON IN ENGLAND

Like most alternative methods, it seems to work if the teachers are able enough and committed enough

The Montessori teaching method, in which children learn at their own pace and testing is banned, has been adopted by a second state primary school in England. Teachers at the Stebbing Primary School, near Great Dunmow in Essex, which has 90 pupils, began to pilot Montessori teaching in September and say that it has already had a dramatic effect on the behaviour of pupils. Teachers removed brightly coloured wall displays and brought in natural wood furniture and equipment. The children now behave more calmly and can work effectively for three hours without a break.

Janet Matthews, the head teacher, said that the school would evaluate the success of the move after a year before taking a final decision. “But what is overwhelmingly coming across is the calmness of the school,” she said. “Children are working for sustained periods of time on the activities they are choosing, and the maths and literacy levels seem pretty good. The classroom was a typical reception classroom, very bright displays, brightly coloured doors and floors. Over the summer holidays we calmed everything down.” The changes have been funded by 20,000 pounds from the Montessori St Nicholas Charity.

In Britain, Montessori teaching had a strong following until the 1970s when it was condemned as elitist. While increasingly popular in nursery schools, the current focus on raising standards and testing means that it is still largely rejected at primary and secondary level. That could change. Ministers set out plans last week for changes to state school teaching with greater emphasis on personalised learning and pupils designing their own education.

Recent research from the US found that children at Montessori schools were better at basic word recognition and mathematics and were more likely to play co-operatively. By 12, they are more creative and better able to resolve social problems.

Gorton Mount became the first state primary to adopt Montessori two years ago. The school, based in inner Manchester and with many disadvantaged pupils, was judged to be failing by Ofsted. The switch had dramatic results. Inspectors praised the calm atmosphere and high concentration. A Department for Education and Skills spokeswoman said: “The conditions attached to maintained schools apply to Montessori, such as providing the national curriculum and participating in national curriculum tests and assessment, as well as staff holding qualified teacher status.”

Source




The Narcoleptic Teacher

Post lifted from Sigmund et al

From the ‘You just can’t make this stuff up‘ department, comes an exchange on a forum for teachers.


The thread, Teacher Sleeping During Nap Time? that asked if it was appropriate for teacher of kindergarteners to sleep during nap time.


That’s right- a teacher, entrusted by parents to teach and look out for the safety and well being of students, wants to know if it’s OK to sleep while children are under their care and supervision.


What makes the thread interesting is are the responses of some of the teachers. Take a few minutes and go through some of the responses.


Adults are discussing and debating the question.


Somebody shoot somebody.


***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"


Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.

***************************

No comments: