Macleans suggests Canadian universities are " 'Too Asian'? "

theboxman are you seriously suggesting that Canadian and Chinese attitudes to education and the way education is managed are not different?

"Cultural" means this is a human construct. They are either the same, the differences are cultural or they are somehow genetic. I think simple elimination can get you to the right answer. That the study of differing systems and how it affects the students is a whole field in pedagogy should tell you something.

I have spent a lot of time working with a Chinese school since my wife taught in one until last year and I assisted and worked with a number of their students for a time. Our son lived all his life in China till age 10 and since then we have dealt with his adaptation to the Canadian school system-- a lot more than language. We rent rooms to visiting professors sent from China to study the differences in pedagogy between Canada and China and how the students themselves are different. They are mostly mandated to study language education (essentially how immersion or language based training is done as that is the department I have had the most contact with). I have heard a great deal from several of these professionals about the differences between students and learning styles since this is of prime interest to them-- the differences in their approach to the university and their university objectives is fascinating to our guests so they often want to discuss it.

To acknowledge that there are differences is not "racist" it is not anti-Chinese culture-- it does not presume that one is superior. But they sure are different and the students do develop different attitudes. I would suggest that to argue there are no differences would be imposing a Canadian vision of education and education values and somehow presuming this is universal-- that is not a progressive idea.

There are not only differences between education systems, styles, techniques there are also differences in values between what skills are considered most important.

My point was that such cultural differences apply only to people who have come through that system and to a lesser degree those who are influenced primarily by them. Culture is a great deal more than dance and painting and writing.

If you are implying that my experience with Chinese is somehow anti-Chinese or simplistic or stereotypes, you are knocking on the wrong door. There is a lot of study in to the various education systems around the world in English as well as other languages including Chinese. I hardly think there is much to gain by having to prove that there are value differences here.

The level of support (read sacrifice) that immigrants especially Chinese will provide for their children's education is well known-- does this have to be proven? I think it is even more absurd to think they could be the same or that our approach which most educators here consider a work-in-progress could be universal.

The article is simplistic; the headline is nasty. The core reality behind the article is that the students are different. That the Chinese system (I assume other Asian ones are likely similar but am not familiar with them), emphasizes information over process, social connections etc. is not even controversial. That Canadian educators have chosen to emphasize method, process etc. over raw information is also beyond dispute-- these are intentional differences. Both education systems constantly are aware of these differences and study each other because they re-evaluate their take on these on an ongoing basis.I think most educators would find a controversy over this to be ridiculous. Neither education system is so sure of itself as to not watch the other with more than curiosity.

That these differences would create different types of students who may not fully understand each other is a logical conclusion.That there is a range and individual exceptions does not negate the trends. That these attitudes are in part informed from wider cultural values and in part the local education science with its prevailing biases is also a given since where else would they come from?

You only run in to trouble if you start drawing conclusions that one is better, or that they need to be kept apart, or that selection other than merit should be considered. The article is clumsy and its title bigoted, but there is no basis to go after everyone who acknowledges that students who come from very different experiences are different.

While we are at it we can also acknowledge that, when speaking of China, there is a huge generation gap like we have not seen here since the 1960s. The cultural differences between one generation in China and another are themselves huge. To assume that there are not huge gaps between those kids and Canadians is to defy reality.

Another point that is not deniable is the level and type of diversity in Chinese schools is less than here and Chinese students are not used to as much diversity themselves may also choose to spend time with what is familiar especially so far from home and when there are language barriers in addition to cultural attitudes to socialization etc. As well Chinese students in University there are regimented more than Canadians are here and have fewer personal choices. Efforts to bring the school populations together are laudable but university budgets are pressured from all directions. I find little that is surprising here.

It is important to remember that we are speaking of individuals but it is pointless to deny that there are not group dynamics, cultural and education system differences and huge differences between the experiences of students from here and those from China.

A note of caution in reading this thread-- I am writing assuming that the big differences being spoken of here are between those who went to school and China and those who have here not those who have a Chinese-looking face or name but who have been socialized here. I see some upthread are not on the same wavelength and are imagining that we are speaking about second generation Asians who only look slightly different for those who want to focus on that. That is why it was so important for me to emphasize that what we are talking about is cultural not racial because as soon as you discuss race, none of this applies as of course any so-called race placed in the same environment will be influenced by that environment not their so-called race.

Cross-posted with you Kropotkin--

When we are speaking about Asians this means MOSTLY mainland Chinese and they are clearly the ones being spoken of in the article if you read it carefully. Most of the Taiwanese, Vietnamese and Hong Kong immigrants are second generation -- they are a small percentage of the foreign students in Canada today and most who identify with those origins as I say are second generation or have been here since childhood.

When it comes to Chinese approaches to education in fact while there may be a lot of differences between the Chinese you speak of (indeed many Vietnamese in Canada are of Chinese extraction) the same themes apply and while I have not had as much direct experience with them, I have heard them say much the same things about the differences. However, there is no indication that they are as segregated as the Mainland Chinese, who are clearly the main subjects of the article.

It might not surpise that many here too understand that there is basically a North American approach, a European approach and pretty much the rest of the world. This is no place to take a stand on stereotyping because these main trends are ones where the rest of the world is more similar and the differences between various Asians when it comes to this are not nearly as significant as what they have in common.

I am mystified why the observation that there exist differences is seen as offensive in itself. What is done from there may be problematic such as the tone of the article and the headline but that there are significant differences in the approach is not.

Here is another difference and I have seen stats but don't have access to them off the top of my head. Asians in general do not use credit as much for higher education and the famileis often pay as they go whereas Canadian studetns are more likely to use student loans. This means that the family is footing more of the bill directly and may have a different say in the education priorities of the student.

boxman, thank you for your excellent posts throughout this thread.

Catchfire wrote:

Finally, the Macleans article is primarily talking about Asian Canadians, not immigrants. Get this through your head.

Why because you have some proof?

I don't accept that at all-- and I think that is your opinion and one I don't need to "get through my head."

I think it is very clear that we are speaking mostly of the very large population of Chinese international students together with Chinese born immigrants. The article specifically speaks about people more comfortable speaking Mandarin. To give you a clue-- most Chinese immigrant kids are as comfortable speaking English as Chinese unless they are very recent immigrants.

I think there is an undercurrent in this thread of people who are over-reaching to make some political point while denying reality on the ground.

Nobody here is denying that racism exists-- what is being denied here is there need to pretend that these kids are all the same and that there are not significant cultural-based differences at work here.

For those who think they are somehow defending the Chinese-- they are the first to acknowledge that these differences exist and, no, they do not feel they are inferior-- indeed most make no value judgement other than the fact that these differences exist and are hugely significant.

As for the issue of diversity in China-- we are talking about the diversity in terms of the cultural approach to education -- China has some 56 ethnic minorities but that is not the side of culture we are talking about. The students who come here may come from various ethnic minorities in China but their approach to education is very similar.

And while nature provides the same to us all our approaches to how we nuture it are cultural.

This is one reason why majority approaches should not be imposed on everyone.

Catchfire wrote:

This was exactly my impression upon walking into one of my first university classes. My "country of origin" is Canada. The problem here is the asumption that simply because your friend is from a different "country of origin," it must be the reason her expectations didn't align with her experience (instead of, for example, a poor teacher, the history of that particular institution, the weather that day, etc.). This is the same trick Macleans tries to pull: here are differences, here are bullshit cultural tropes random white kids believe in, therefore they must be connected.

Good for you for noticing that. I did too.

My point was that if there is a striking difference in the way things are done from one country to another it is often equvalent to a cultural difference.

Another example of it - a friend of mine over there who didn't want to go busking because he didn't feel qualified because he hadn't yet passed his music exam. I don't know too many people raised in Canada who would think that way. I can think of plenty of other ways that, generally speaking, some people think and see things from a different perspective than we do here.

But I should have known that even touching this subject was a kiss of death.

Sean in Ottawa writes:
And while nature provides the same to us all our approaches to how we nuture it are cultural.
Caissa would dispute that nature provides us all with the same while concurring with the last half of the sentence.

boxman wrote:

 On another point, an unspoken corollary of the cultural argument for East Asian educational outcomes is to give alibi to the claim that the relative marginalization of other racialized groups in education (Afro-Canadians, First Nations) is also an effect of culture -- in this case by a cultural lack of emphasis on education. In other words, at the heart of the argument from culture is a dismissal of systemic and structural racisms in the institutions of education.  

Yes!

And, um, *cough* I mention this in my blog *cough*

Catchfire wrote:

Your description of "Confucian" cultures, aside from being cartoonishly generalizing, could easily apply to English-speaking cultures who also (shock! horror!) praise a canon, whether it be Biblical or Shakespearean.

Since the early Imperial exam system, Chinese rote-learning has gone far beyond knowledge of cannonized works. Exemplars of writing--calligraphy, as well as content--were etched in stone, for students to take rubbings from and copy, verbatim. Even students of, say, the classics in Western institutions never had to copy the Iliad down in the origional Greek, marked on calligraphy. Islamic (madrassa) scholarship provides an interesting contrast. Even though students are expected to practice Arabic calligraphy, they also learn to recite the Qur'an, with the spoken word granted equal footing (classical, spoken Arabic is very different from many dialects in common use). Chinese is a unique example, since the written word has no real modern speech counterpart--Putonghua is the standard spoken form, but still very different from standard written Chinese. There is an emphasis on writing above all that simply has no counterpart in any other cultures' educational practices. And this bookishness permeated every culture under the influence of both Confucian thought and Chinese orthography. Korea and Japan are examples. People I've known who've taught ESL in East Asia have complained about their students' lack of exposure to the spoken, as opposed to written word.

And I stand by my assertion that university students are a privelaged class. Compared to when I went to school, tuition rates are eye-poppingly high, especially for foreign students whose generally well-off parents pay about double the rates of Canadian students' tuition. And there isn't the vicious sinophobic racism of the early 20th Century, with persecution of Chinese-Canadians. These students are neither poor, nor marginalized in any way. Actually, there does seem to be a great deal of on-campus friction between mainlanders and Taiwanese students, and I've encountered some pretty racist comments about Tibetans from Chinese students, particularilly after the Dalai Lama visit.

With respect, Sean, I feel like you're reading a different article than I am.  The opposition set up throughout is between 'white' and 'Asian' students - not between 'Western' and 'Asian' or 'Canadian' and "Asian'.  This starts in the first paragraph:  "“The only people from our school who went to U of T were Asian,” explains Alexandra, a second-year student who looks like a girl from an Aritzia billboard. “All the white kids,” she says, “go to Queen’s, Western and McGill.”"

It's spelled out a couple of paragraphs further down:  "“Too Asian” is not about racism, say students like Alexandra: many white students simply believe that competing with Asians—[b]both Asian Canadians and international students[/b]—requires a sacrifice of time and freedom they’re not willing to make."

The paraphrase from Stephen Hsu refers to discrimination faced by "Asian-American university applicants".

A couple of paragraphs down from there:  "[b]Asian-Canadian[/b] students are far more likely to talk about and assert their ethnic identities than white students. “I’m Asian,” says 21-year-old Susie Su, a third-year student at UBC’s Sauder School of Business. “I do have traditional Asian parents. I feel the pressure of finding a good job and raising a good family.” That pressure helps shape more than just the way Su handles study and school assignments; it shapes the way she interacts with her colleagues. “If I feel like it’s going to be an event where it’s all white people, I probably wouldn’t want to go,” she says. “There’s a lot of just drinking. It’s not that I don’t like white people. But you tend to hang out with people of the same race.”"

Now, at other points the article does refer to "immigrants", suggesting that [i]all[/i] of these groups are being lumped together, which is what we object to.

(I teach at university btw.)

Evening Star-- perhaps I am reading the article to include both the students and 1st generation immigrant Chinese like some mentioned-- traditional parents etc.

There is a cultural difference between them and those whose parents went to school here.

The fact that very high numbers of the parents who in many cases are paying for the education are insisting on their cultural values towards education be respected-- emphasis on the academics and pressure to avoid the rest of campus life should not be a shock.

I don't get why this assertion is a problem. And it does not support the articles "Too many Asians" line.

My purpose here was merely to assert that yes they as a group are different and this is not a bad thing. This is not a suggest that one is better smarter etc. These are suppositions others are making. The issue here is if there are self-selecting separate communities and if these communities are separate because they are different or only because of racism. I am merely saying they are different and there is a lot of pressure on some Asian students not to spend much time with those that will party away their tuition. And I can't tell you how many times I have heard Chinese parents say that they don't want their kids involved in all the other stuff-- student union, clubs etc. because they want them to focus exclusively on academics.

Now if you want to drill down you may find additional racist explanations -- perhaps such as the assumption that Chinese students must do better to succeed because of racism and that the social connections aren't worth anything because of racism-- I have heard these, although rarely. Mostly I just hear, you go to university for academics don't waste time on anything else.

These opinions are so popular and they do drive the students in a certain direction. In any case each family and student decides what they want to get out of university. But this emphasis that any statement that these kids are differently culturally is called racist just makes no sense because their experiences, expectations are different. I not sure if people are arguing that there should be something wrong with that or if we can only be equal and prejudice-free if we are all the same. That is not how I see anti-racism.

double post

I don't have the statistics but I did see some related to Chinese students in university (translated for me from a Chinese Newspaper).

The upshot was that Chinese students had more than their share of the top of the classes and also a surprising number at the bottom. They were underrepresented in the middle.  The explanation (I am not sure if this was the writer or the study) was that they worked their way to get to the top, had more family support (which I am arguing is the cultural value in this thread) and they were less involved socially. The reasons for being less involved socially included parents wanting them not to, lack of interest and difficulties fitting in - so dedicating to work instead. As well good study habits and training were mentioned.

The reason they were also overrepresented in failure as well was attributed to, lack of some of the soft social skills that can be needed, a lack of interest in the subject (parents pushed them in to it), problems with the language and being overwhelmed by the difference. Other points were mentioned but I don't remember them.

This article applied to Chinese students not Asians in general although given the percentages I think that Chinese students would swamp any more general Asian stats as I showed upthread.

The article did not address second generation Chinese and neither am I. I was very interested in the article when it appeared and at the time remembered a great deal more of it but unfortunately it is fading away. At that time I discussed it with a lot of people because it was so interesting to me. This is more than a year ago now.

The upshot of the article (and I think the headline too) was to warn Chinese parents not to push their kids towards studies for which they had no interest or aptitude just because they might make money. The reason I asked someone to translate it is because this fits with what I have long believed and advised students-- follow what you love-- you will be better at it and therefore more successful than by following where you think there is money.

Sean, I agree, in general principle, that it is possible for different cultures to have different attitudes towards learning.  I do not think that is a racist view at all.  If anything, it seems fairly obvious.  That has little to do with the article's many problems as I see them.

Quote:

Oh, and here's a formal tip to others: "Caucasian" is not a politically correct word for "white" person. It is, however, a term that attempts to strip privilege and hegemonic power from whiteness by decontextualizing it.

I don't know about a term making any attempt itself, but...

On another note, why is it that some people use "Asian" rather than "Chinese" when they want to sound polite in talking about ethnic origin?

And to be clear, I realize that's a horrible, offensive term.  I just think that most of the time, people are talking about physical features and old-fashioned concepts of race when they use the term 'Asian'.

Evening Star wrote:

They're really subsituting it for 'Mongoloid', aren't they? 

What?

Back at McGill, there were much higher admission standards for international students. It's not surprising if on average, Asians and Americans for that matter get higher grades.

I don't agree with the excessive academic focus. I was in one of the most challenging programs there, with a two thirds failure rate. I graduated with first class honours, and I had time to participate in student government and to write (regularly) for one of the student newspapers, among other things. It's about priorities.

BTW, I know lots of Asians in academia, I've never noticed them to be "memorizers". Their ability to understand and to think deeply and critically is just fine.

How self-righteous do you need to be to believe that the western model of education is the one true, best model that encourages true critical thinking? It's almost like a sitcom portrayal of a racist.

To answer a couple easy questions

First Post 84 has it correct-- I got in to this on a minor point which became a thread drift. I was never defending the problems with the article-- I was resisting what I saw as a desire to see people as all the same-- that is not equality. I got in to this because I think it is an important distinction. I don't think you answer racism by saying everyone is the same culturally.

The second clarification is where the word Asian came from in this context. It is a silly word the way it is used because its meaning here is very narrow. The word Oriental was popular for some time for referring collectively to East Asian people's however that term is of course Eurocentric and therefore offensive as it means Eastern-- as in East of Europe. It came to be accepted to call them Asians. The problem is the word Asian while it technically means the people of Asia has come to mean what used to be called Oriental. Other Asians have other terms be it Middle Eastern, Central Asian, South Asian, South East Asian etc. So most people use the word Asian to mean East Asian.

Catchfire wrote:

Finally, the Macleans article is primarily talking about Asian Canadians, not immigrants.

FWIW, many Asian Canadians are immigrants. (I'm reacting to the implicit dichotomy in the word "not".)

I teach at one of Canada's most culturally diverse campuses: I'd say about a third of the students are of East Asian ancestry, about a third of South Asian ancestry, and the rest are of European, Middle Eastern, or African ancestry -- with many whose ancestry is a mix of the above. My most recent upper-level class had five students all east Asian immigrants, four born in China and one born in the Phillippines. They were all wonderfully charming, hard-working, absolutely adorable students, who had a wonderful combination of academic seriousness and social grace. When I taught the course a few years before that, it again had five students, three of European ancestry, and two of South Asian ancestry. (Maybe five students is too small a sample size to make any generalizations.) Again, a wonderful group of students. The current leadership of our department's student association has two white women, three Chinese men whose accents suggest they were not born in Canada (though I've never asked), and one young man whose parents are from Trinidad and whose ancestry is mostly south Asian, but also European, east Asian and African. Again they are all wonderfully charming, hard-working, absolutely adorable students, who have a wonderful combination of academic seriousness and social grace. When I look around campus, people from different backgrounds seem to socialize very well, hanging out cross-culturally. It's funny how poorly my experience is reflected in the Maclean's article.

Maysie wrote:

...  I will say two things. The first is that most posters to this thread seem to have not actually read the rather lengthy Maclean's article. Please take the time to read it. The article is sloppily written, and wouldn't pass a first year reference essay assignment. No citations, and all the "proof" of the thesis which is "There are too many non-partying high-marks Asians in certain universities in Canada. This is a bad thing." is hobbled together by random (white) people's various dumbass opinions. Except for one Asian guy.

No stats, no data, nothing. How this is news I really don't understand.

As an editor, I will stick to a critique of the journalism. I did read the article, and yes, it is stats-light, anecdote-heavy. There are some regional statistics (ex. Vancouver population 21 per cent East Asian, UBC closer to 40 per cent) here and there, but no analysis of that. Is this proportion unusual? How do Canadian universities compare among themselves? and vs US schools?

Also, no national figures. I would guess from reading the enrolment stats offered that UBC, Waterloo and Uof T are exceptional for their enrolment patterns and demographics. Is that true? What other ethnic/demographic patterns stand out nationally? Historically?

 Passing demographic trends may prove misleading. As a graduate of both McGill and Concordia, I met paranoid Anglos in the 1970s and 80s who saw steep rises in francophone enrolment and felt the nationalist Quebec government was "squeezing" or even starving the English universities, and trying to turn esp. Concordia "into French universities".  Twenty years later, that scare looks  goofy, given that the expanding  Concordia campus has been on a non-stop building boom. Moreover, the proportion of francophone students at both Montreal institutions has steadily declined; the increase  was temporary, corresponding to the rise of the French middle class. (In the case of Concordia, the completion of UQAM also meant there was suddenly a French alternative as a night-school U in many fields.)

So that bout of Anglo paranoia proved groundless. This one should, too.

 The chatty and anecdotal tone of the Maclean's article also undermines serious reporting. I had a good laugh at the quote below:

... a [TO] high school senior deciding where he'd like to go, will head "either east, west or to McGill" -- unusual academic options ..

Unusual choices for Toronto HS grads?? Sheesh, that was EXACTLY my agenda 30 years ago!

 On the other hand, Maclean's does put the main title in "quotes" : 'Too Asian?'; this is standard journalese for remaining at arms-length from a controversial, reported statement (ex. Obama 'too liberal'?, social benefits "too high'?). BTW, the babble thread title is wrong.

Maclean's should not be advocate for more/less of any ethnic group;  but they ARE reporting on a widespread word-of-mouth Canadian student view, one which would not disappear if unreported. Au contraire.

So don't shoot the messenger.