<p>I know the mindset behind such bigoted requirements. I am very familiar with it elsewhere. I have been fighting this mindset since the age of 10. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Note “parents”. That’s the way they screen you. If you don’t have Chinese parents –> no heritage requirements imposed. If you have Chinese parents, regardless of your existing proficiency –> heritage requirements are imposed.</p>
<p>You should really stop with the race card thing if you want anyone to take you seriously. The whole “I’m a victim” routine is sure to put off a lot of people, because it’s annoying. I’m pretty sure that you have no idea what real racism is.</p>
<p>Again, have you ever had a “heritage” component imposed on you at school? </p>
<p>You get brainwashed with didactic stories about Confucian morals and nobility, and other patronising things, as though those are important parts of the Chinese language. **** that. I don’t want to learn any moralising lessons. I want to learn an aesthetic language with an interesting analytic grammar and complex generative syntax so I can write my own poetry in it, not recite conservative bull**** in it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How many times did you migrate across the ocean in your life? </p>
<p>I’m not playing the victim card here. I’m past being that. Rather, I’m choosing to fight an injustice I <em>once</em> suffered due to linguistic ignorance. And that’s the other thing: linguistic ignorance is a particularly bad thing for the public good.</p>
<p>Oh, I like the fact that you ignore the INJUSTICE of the policy that I’ve clearly pointed out to you. No instead you’re all “you’re playing the victim card” and stuff. The Equal Protection Clause is the Equal Protection Clause, and there is clearly a double standard here.</p>
<p>No, I have not had such an experience because I grew up speaking English only. Instead I dealt with sweeping generalities because I had an interest in computers and science from an early age. But rather than go on some crusade to change the world I just smiled because I knew a lot of these people would be serving me McDonalds through the drive through window in 10 years while I’d have a successful job making a good amount of money.</p>
<p>I see you like to edit your posts to substantially change the content.</p>
<p>You’re still playing the victim card, despite the fact that you claim you’re not. Pretty much everyone who busts out the Constitution in a vain “hey look at this ambiguously worded phrase in this amendment, it clearly shows that I am being maliciously oppressed in a manner that is really keeping me down, despite the fact that I have had little to no legal training and cannot even begin to imagine all the consequences of such an amendment” is playing the victim card. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before Hitler, Stalin, and the Japanese invasion of Asia make it into this thread. </p>
<p>You really don’t have it that bad, sorry to burst your bubble. I realize that it is currently a bit on the trendy side amongst some to claim oppression but most people really do find it annoying. There are billions of people out there in poverty who do not have the luxury of attending a nice college or have the free time or capacity to debate something on an internet forum.</p>
<p>Now, let’s examine why the rationale to make native speakers take different classes is sound. </p>
<p>It should be obvious that universities want to preserve the integrity of their grades, to some extent. While this can be argued against with accusations of rampant grade inflation that is seemingly prevalent in higher education today, that is an entirely different subject with many complex aspects. Anyways, universities want to ensure that when someone graduates with a 3.9 GPA that people are not going to laugh and say “Oh, a 3.9 at University of Easy? That’s like a 1.9 anywhere else.”</p>
<p>You do not protect the integrity of your grades by literally handing out free A’s. There is a big difference between having a little bit of background on the subject because you took a high school class on it and growing up around something for the first eighteen years of your life. I would hope that you can see the difference. </p>
<p>I agree that those with substantial math backgrounds, for example, should not be able to take the most basic of math courses for credit. This leads to an artificial inflation of their GPA as they are not actually learning anything but instead are just being handed a free grade. At least if someone who wishes to boost his or her GPA takes some easy, low level elective in another subject there will at least be some learning of something going on.</p>
<p>If I went overseas to study I would not expect to take an entry level English as a foreign language class. Rather, if I chose to take English courses I would expect that it would be something more challenging and would deal with other aspects of the language beyond the absolute most basic vocabulary and sentence structure. I see absolutely no problem with doing the same thing here in America.</p>
<p>A number of schools track languages by native and non-native speaker. The reason is obvious: non-native speakers are at a significant disadvantage in the classroom. One of my daughters, who btw is fluent in Mandarin, was in a non-tracked program. The native speakers included people who’d lived in China nearly their entire lives and who could read and write Mandarin (which are two distinct things). This created a number of problems, notably that the material, to be even remotely challenging for native speakers, had to be more difficult than the non-natives could handle. This discouraged non-native speakers from taking advanced classes and that costs the department in the long run because money & time follows interest by students.</p>
<p>The OP noted that he or she wanted an easy class. A more real issue which schools should consider is whether they should allow people who are fluent in a language to take that language.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s like saying SAT 1400 people are at a disadvantage in a classroom of SAT 2000-2400’s. Well sure they won’t do well against them. But native speakers have already done their work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except the same thing is NOT being done for all their other courses, such as the OP"s example of calculus, and probably not for French, Spanish, etc. It is being done against Chinese people only.</p>
<p>^ Actually it’s done for French and Spanish. But what’s said is that as long as your PARENTS are from China then you have to take the “heritage” course. But that means that even if I speak English to my parents at home and haven’t spoken Chinese since 6 I’m still forced to take a harder Chinese class. </p>
<p>At least they should base it on your actual Chinese level rather than perceived.</p>
<p>^
Sorry guys I’ve made a mistake. DISREGARD MY POST ABOVE (#28)</p>
<p>FREN 101 Beginners’ French I
FREN 102 Beginners’ French II
FREN 111 Beginners’ French III
FREN 112 Beginners’ French IV</p>
<p>JAPN 100 Beginning Japanese I
JAPN 101 Beginning Japanese I
JAPN 102 Beginning Japanese II A
JAPN 103 Beginning Japanese II B
JAPN 150 Intensive Beginning Japanese I
JAPN 151 Intensive Beginning Japanese II </p>
<p>SPAN 101 Beginners’ Spanish I
SPAN 102 Beginners’ Spanish II
SPAN 201 Intermediate Spanish I
SPAN 202 Intermediate Spanish II
SPAN 206 Conversational Spanish I
SPAN 207 Conversational Spanish II</p>
<p>Whereas for Chinese and Chinese only:</p>
<p>CHIN 101 Basic Chinese I: Part 1 (Non-Heritage)
CHIN 103 Basic Chinese I: Part 2 (Non-Heritage)
CHIN 104 Intensive Basic Chinese I (Non-Heritage)
CHIN 105 Basic Chinese II: Part 1 (Non-Heritage)
CHIN 107 Basic Chinese II: Part 2 (Non-Heritage)
CHIN 108 Intensive Basic Chinese II (Non-Heritage)
CHIN 111 Basic Chinese I: Part 1 (Heritage)
CHIN 113 Basic Chinese I: Part 2 (Heritage)</p>
<p>I see some sort of discrinmination going on…</p>
<p>The first Chinese course for “heritage” students, or students with Chinese parents who may or may not speak Chinese to them is CHIN 111 yet for all other languages native students can start with the first course.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why only the Chinese are forced to take harder language courses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t explain why only Chinese courses segregate native and non-native speakers. Also, AP is not just “a little bit” of backgroud. . AP Calculus BC teaches you EVERYTHING you need to to know about Calclulus I. I could even argue that someone with Calculus BC has more advantage for Calculus I than a native speaker taking Chinese 101. Simply because 9 months before entering university the Calculus BC student has been writing tests and doing homework for Calculus I. Whereas I may be a native speaker, but I’ve never prepared for any Chinese tests… I can’t even write Chinese well…</p>
<p>My guess is that the number of “heritage” Chinese at your school substantially outweighs the number of “heritage” Japanese or French. Thus there is a large base of students to offer the classes to on a regular basis, where they could not do the same for Japanese or French. I can assure you that there is not someone out there who is hellbent on ruining the lives of every Chinese student, contrary to what you two seem to be indicating.</p>
<p>Also, life’s not fair. Get used to it.</p>
<p>It looks to me like you are taking the same course simply with other Chinese heritage students instead of non-heritage students. I hardly would call that a disadvantage, as you will be on the same level as your peers. </p>
<p>I think this is a non-issue that is being blown out of proportion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Translation: why should I care, it doesn’t affect MY interests</p>
<p>Clearly the native French and Spanish speakers should be allowed to get away with easy A’s…but someone stop the Asians.</p>
<p>It’s effectively a racially-based “punishment” because Chinese-background students tend to be more common in universities than say … Hispanic ones. It may not have been intentional, but it doesn’t make it any more acceptable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you get what a “heritage” component is. More often or not it includes tired neo-Confucian moralising.</p>
<p>Why should I have to learn the moral character of my ancestral great grandparents? I want to learn a bloody language, not get didactic “heritage” lessons. What if I want to learn to speak Chinese so I can converse with my elders about the role of reform in Chinese politics … and not get brainwashed by those same politics?</p>
<p>I don’t think you get it galoisien, since you don’t even know what school the OP goes too. A simple google search completely resolved the issue:</p>
<p>[Basic</a> Chinese Course Description (Heritage)](<a href=“http://www2.asia.ubc.ca/faculty/li/department/course_description/CHINESE_100_COURSE_DESCRIPTION.htm]Basic”>http://www2.asia.ubc.ca/faculty/li/department/course_description/CHINESE_100_COURSE_DESCRIPTION.htm)</p>
<p>By " heritage students " , we refer to :</p>
<pre><code>* Students who were born in a non-Chinese speaking country, but was raised in a home where Mandarin or another Chinese dialect was spoken, who speaks or merely understands the dialect, and who is to some degree bilingual in English and Chinese.
<p>IN Conclusion: The OP needs to provide more information before he starts complaining. Heritage is designed for students who can already speak Mandarin. If he is already conversational, than damn right he should not be allowed to take basic Chinese. </p>
<p>If HE IS NOT CONVERSATIONAL, than he can obviously enroll in the non-heritage class.</p>
<p>Talk about trying to make huge issues about non-existent problems, this whole thread is ridiculous.</p>
<p>There’s the race card again.</p>
<p>Yes, because the course discriminates against you on the basis of race. I have every right to pull the race card. </p>
<p>If you are white and fluent in Chinese – you don’t get screened.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but what about the Hispanics? The French Americans? </p>
<p>People who have an advanced math background retake calculus for easy A’s all the time. </p>
<p>How is this not unjust?</p>
<p>Also, you should have a strong suspicion of anything named “heritage”.</p>
<p>than that is an issue that needs to be taken up with those departments. the Chinese department is separate from other foreign language departments and personally I think their system it is much more equitable. </p>
<p>University departments make unilateral decisions. It’s their choice how they run their department. At most universities lower-level Calc classes are curved to a C+/B-. Why anyone would ever view that as an easy A is beyond me.</p>
<p>I wasn’t aware Chinese was a race. Maybe you could make more of an argument for a single ethnic group, like Han Chinese but even then that is pushing it. [Race</a> and ethnicity in the United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census]Race”>Race and ethnicity in the United States census - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Also, did you read the requirements just posted to be labeled “heritage?” It basically requires you to have a pretty good understanding of the language. You don’t walk into some office, have someone see slanty eyes and get HERITAGE stamped across your forehead.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<ul>
<li>Students who were born in a Chinese speaking country whose first language was Chinese, and who have received some, but incomplete formal education in that country up to 8th grade.</li>
</ul>
<p>So? I went to **grade 1<a href=“that’s%20a%20pretty%20****ty%20level%20of%20Chinese–NOT%20pretty%20good”>/b</a> there. So that qualifies me as heritage. That still doesn’t explain why ONLY Chinese separates heritage/non-heritage. The seperation itself is a farce. You don’t seperate students who took AP versus those who didn’t.</p>
<p>^
The 22nd federal census, in 2000, had a “short form”[8] that asked one ethnic and one race/ancestry question:
<p>No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino
Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano
Yes, Puerto Rican
Yes, Cuban
Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino (write in group)
2. What is the person’s race?</p>
<p>White
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native (write in tribe)
Asian Indian
Chinese<br>
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Vietnamese
Native Hawaiian
Guamanian or Chamorro
Samoans
Other Pacific Islander (write in race)
Other race (write in race)
This census acknowledged that “race categories include both racial and national-origin groups.”</p>
<p>The ability to read Wikipedia is a pre-requisite for reading academic journals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By using a racial sieve?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well obviously if you have previous background it’s very easy to rise above the curve. The class average is like 40+ and you score 95+. I’ve done it before, especially for French phonetics. They don’t screen you for previous background in linguistics, so a C-average class was an easy A because I essentially had learned most of the material before (by learning IPA). </p>
<p>So it is established that easy A’s are in general permitted elsewhere if you have previous background. Why forbid it to Chinese students?</p>