Narcissa

...yes, i think you've said that quite a few times already. so why are you still here????????

dlm.jorge

This thread is so ridiculously stupid.

gkc4

Case in point...no one at a MUN conference wants to listen to the awkward nerd who doesn't have good speaking skills.

And there are plenty of dumb Asians. I know a lot.

Narcissa

this thread is so ridiculously stereotypically CC. gb.

gkc4

What, did you want me to say "hail, China" or something?

Narcissa

no, lol i wasn't talking about you =P

i agree, i do know some dumb asians >_>

sgk1234

Agreed there are many more factors as to why the economy of one is more successful than the other. The economic system itself (communism vs capitalism) as well as other things, such as the various wars (cough... Iraq... cough...) can affect the economy.

sgk1234

Forget the dumb/smart asians thing... they're just people. And please don't forget, East Asians aren't the only ones... there are are SE, South (me!!), Central, as well as Middle Easterners, all of whom are Asians as well. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I hate it when "Asian" is used as a generic term for the Chinese

Roger_Dooley

>>the ppl who graduate from top chinese universities did NOT have ANY ECS or anything, and still end up, on average, being the most successful. and so do the Americans that come from their top colleges.

A couple of issues:

First, in some Asian countries, the college has a direct influence on the success of its grads. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but at one point if you didn't go to the University of Tokyo, getting a prestigious government job (not an oxymoron in Japan) would be next to impossible. In the US, the success of elite school grads is due more to the selection process than in some benefit magically conferred by the school's name. I.e., if you can get into Harvard, you could probably go to a very good but less prestigious school and end up being equally successful.

Sweeping Generalization: An elite Asian university graduates its nation's leaders because to be on that leadership track you must have graduated from that university.

In contrast, to assure itself of graduating some of the future leaders of US industry, politics, science, etc., an elite US university must attempt to recruit these capable people while they are high school seniors. Hence, the emphasis on "interesting", which might also be termed "accomplished" or "high potential."

That's a vast oversimplification, but is reflective of the relative meritocracy of the US compared to some nations where connections, university credentials, etc. are practically the only factors that determine an individual's potential.

Certainly, some Asian countries are far more flexible and meritocratic than others. Likewise, there are still some professions in the US where having an elite degree helps.

aisgzdavinci

Everyone at the MUN is there to put those three letters on the transcript.

Narcissa

lol, nope. In asian government jobs are the best. My mom used to work for the government back before she came here, and they have so much more privileges.

Canuckguy

It is my greatest fear that as we are moving into a more and more competitive marketplace of the new century that more and more countries (proxy for cultures) will find themselves unable to compete, and will survive as curiosities living off the largess of others. I don't think it an accident that Singapore has a Lee, China a Deng, Zimbabwe a Mugabe, and Argentina a Peron. I hope I am wrong.

OP's original question is easy to answer if we are only willing to be honest with ourselves. These elite institutions, private and expensive, are there to serve the scions of the rich and famous. They gain their power and prestige that way and their brands will continue to be managed accordingly. You don't think Prince Charles got into Cambridge or Lee Ka-shing's children got into Stanford on "merit", do you?

The rest are there as fodder, either to improve the educational experience of the R&F or the power and prestige of the institution or both. Diversity, recruited athletes, interesting people can all be explained away easily.

Earlier there was a threat about the "ugly and corrupt side of admission". I don't think that is the case at all. The analogy with Studio 54 which I used in an old threat is still appropriate. There is nothing personal, just business.

gkc4

aisgzdavinci: Um...not really. Some people actually enjoy doing their extracurricular activities.

asdfjkl1

I agree. I mean, I do it for fun and so do others. But I wouldn't have gotten started if I knew that there was no benefit for winning awards and slaving away over research. At this point, the awards are rewards for all the work I've put in and my negotiations with others! I'm happy I'm doing it for myself--and my team.

And, I do agree. It isn't fun listening to people who have bad speaking skills. It works out better if you're smart AND you got speaking skills, ofcourse. The sad truth is that confidence and chrisma convinces people so much more than raw knowledge. The ability to shape people's opinions is just incredible--and much more powerful than knowledge. If you have knowledge and never share it, how do others know you have it? Think of it that way. At conferences, I love to work with people who might be geniuses--who are bad at speaking so that I can represent them and give them the proper credit they deserve--from the committee!

Keshira

*laughs*
I'm glad you think I'm so amazing that you can't even believe I exist. Btw, I said I could probably get 2350+ in junior year without much prep, based on the fact that I got 2220 without prep in middle school.
Yes, I do study for less than 2 hours a day. If you read my entire post, I'm not exactly proud of it.
And I hate it when people throw around the word "nerd" as the ultimate insult- it just means intellectually curious, not "plodder," "boring," "no social life," or anything else! I don't understand why it's a BAD thing now to achieve academically- if you think so, what are you doing on this site? Don't make stupid assumptions about other people either.