Are Asian Indians at a disadvantage?

[zwitterion34]

^Nice work boss!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mipp0]

http://www.lcme.org/functions.pdf

scroll down to page 5 (the 8th page of the document).

The accrediting body for medical schools calls the tune. The adcoms dance because the alternative is to lose accreditation.

Oh wow...learned something new...

 

[Double Trouble]

^Nice work boss!

Whats up with you and faces?

 

[bassvp]

loool
you're a regular sherlock holmes

You're picking up some of the American references!

What are medical schools supposed to do? Let in all asians and white people and not let any black or mexican people into medical school? What about black and mexican patients?

This. Normally I am not a fan of "affirmative action" kinds of things (at least in this day and age), but I do think that there may be some sort of necessity for it in med school admissions. People of all races and backgrounds need doctors who will serve them and relate to them. That does not happen from having all doctors being of any one particular social/economic/racial background. We need a great mix of physicians more than we need just the best and the brightest.

 

[Stumpyman]

You're picking up some of the American references!



This. Normally I am not a fan of "affirmative action" kinds of things (at least in this day and age), but I do think that there may be some sort of necessity for it in med school admissions. People of all races and backgrounds need doctors who will serve them and relate to them. That does not happen from having all doctors being of any one particular social/economic/racial background. We need a great mix of physicians more than we need just the best and the brightest.

I agree, we definitely need doctors of all backgrounds. But don't you think the way to do that is to not penalize hardworking groups for it and hand under-represented minorities easy admission on a silver platter?

I understand if we didn't give URMs easier admission, we'd have a LOT less of them. Why is that? Because, in general, they lack the resources that Over-represented minorities have. Therefore, instead of handing them easier admission, we should help give them the resources they need to get into med school.

 

[yellowfish]

I agree, we definitely need doctors of all backgrounds. But don't you think the way to do that is to not penalize hardworking groups for it and hand under-represented minorities easy admission on a silver platter?

I understand if we didn't give URMs easier admission, we'd have a LOT less of them. Why is that? Because, in general, they lack the resources that Over-represented minorities have. Therefore, instead of handing them easier admission, we should help give them the resources they need to get into med school.

Definitely agree, and hopefully this will become reality down the line. The fact of the matter is that we're compensating for foundational failures near the end of the process, and it's hurting everybody in some way.

 

[bassvp]

I agree, we definitely need doctors of all backgrounds. But don't you think the way to do that is to not penalize hardworking groups for it and hand under-represented minorities easy admission on a silver platter?

I understand if we didn't give URMs easier admission, we'd have a LOT less of them. Why is that? Because, in general, they lack the resources that Over-represented minorities have. Therefore, instead of handing them easier admission, we should help give them the resources they need to get into med school.

Setting the bar a little bit lower is a heck of a lot easier than scrounging up millions of dollars to supplement education and opportunities in places where they may be lacking. If you can figure out where to get these resources, I'm all for it.

 

[Stumpyman]

Setting the bar a little bit lower is a heck of a lot easier than scrounging up millions of dollars to supplement education and opportunities in places where they may be lacking. If you can figure out where to get these resources, I'm all for it.

Yeah exactly. What we're doing now is the easy way out and there will be repercussions in the future (and of course, a wider gap between all races).

I don't want to delve into political issues and throw this thread off track but we sure as heck could stop sending money on pointless wars and maybe reform the educational system.

 

[kpcrew]

You're picking up some of the American references!

what does this even mean

 

[IMSingular]

"A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action" by Richard Sandler in Stanford Law Review
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/rubinfeldd/SanderFINAL.pdf

Here is a well thought out statistical analysis in the context of law school admissions. It demonstrates that, because affirmative action puts people into a more competitive school than they would have otherwise attended, minorities have higher attrition rates, lower bar passage rates, and resulting challenges in finding a job. In the absence of affirmative action, there would actually be more blacks working successfully as lawyers in the US.
....

The table 5.5 from the above study seems to contradict what you say.
It seems the "blacks", a pejorative(?) that is used by the author, shows that the percentage NOT graduating is much smaller in elite schools compared to not elite schools. Of course there self selection. But since the bar exam is the same for all that is what one should expect. If the black students selected in elite schools are of "lower" quality than other then they seem to improve themselves after getting to the schoo since there not much difference in numbers not graduatingl. Conclusion that there would have been more black lawyers if they had gone to less demanding schools is not warrented. The table doesn't support that.

Note: Well I tried to copy and pase that table but format gets messed up.

 

[IMSingular]

.

 

[ur2l8]

I know another one too. But her last name is English. Her father is caucasian and a lawyer while her mother is from one of caribbean islands. She comes from upper middle class family.

Her GPA was below 3.6 with downward trend having multiple Cs in orgo and physics. Her MCAT was 26. She had no research experience and had less than 100 hours of volunteering. Her personal statement was about her sick "abuela"(major cliche) but I have never seen her calling her father "papi." She got into two out of state schools where the average MCATs were 31 and 33. These schools stress heavily on community service and serving the underserved, but she wants to do orthopedics and open a private practice.

I really like this post. I am an Asian American and I believe that all races should be represented. While it's hard to decipher what a med school applicant's true intentions are, I feel it's safe to assume that the overwhelming amount of Asian applicants are pressured by their parents because being a physician is a solid career. But I feel like this encompasses most people's intentions, in all honesty. Are these bad intentions? I don't know.

(It was my intention until I started reading some of Dr. Paul Farmer's reading.) Now I'd rather work for a non-profit with little- to-no-income patients.

I don't know about numbers, but I know that in Hungary, Europe, doctors are paid much less and are about lower to middle class in the population. My brother spent most of his life there, and he says in schools, more kids are pressured to enter agriculture to be farmers (upper class) than doctors.

Maybe we should take the Hungarian doctors and bring them here since most of them must have true intentions of charity!

sorry for spelling/grammar mistakes - im in class and typing on my phone

 

[Timewinders]

I think the best system for disadvantaged applicants would be to go by socio-economic level. Because there are also Asian and Caucasians that come from poor backgrounds that are not cut any slack. It is also known the African Americans and Hispanics are over-represented in the lower socio-economic levels. Thus a system that strictly went by income/SES would account still account for the barriers that hispanics and african americans face, while also addressing that asians and caucasians may also come from a disadvantaged background, I hope the LCME has at least given this idea a thought.

This would be fair, but it'll never happen. Colleges and med schools don't want to accept too many students who would have difficulties paying up.

There's a lot of ****ing crying in this thread.

Man up, get better stats and apply hard. Simple as that. If you want life on a platter, go play the lotto and hope for the best.

This coming from a scary brown person.

Everyone already does this. It just enables a dumb system.

 

[OPanchor]

The fact of the matter is that Asian-Americans are minorities as defined by the Census Bureau, but are not afforded diversity considerations because they are overrepresented in higher education. It has nothing to do with you personally, but rather the primary and secondary effects of historical events that continue to plague certain groups.

Sigh...

A group gets punished for working hard :/

Overrepresented in Medicine in America... yes.

You are in that great big salad bowl just like so many other pieces of lettuce and chunks of cucumber and tomato. If you get selected, great, but you aren't underrepresented. No one is going to scoop you out and add you to the plate saying, "I didn't get any of the lettuce..."

You need to be as good or better than your peers to have a shot. Work hard. Be exceptional.

As an east asian wanting to get into medicine, reading this was abnormally depressing. thumbdownthumbdownthumbdown

 

[487806]

As an east asian wanting to get into medicine, reading this was abnormally depressing. thumbdownthumbdownthumbdown

And way to necrobump this thread after 16 months to make everyone have that same feel.

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

"A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action" by Richard Sandler in Stanford Law Review
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/rubinfeldd/SanderFINAL.pdf

Here is a well thought out statistical analysis in the context of law school admissions. It demonstrates that, because affirmative action puts people into a more competitive school than they would have otherwise attended, minorities have higher attrition rates, lower bar passage rates, and resulting challenges in finding a job. In the absence of affirmative action, there would actually be more blacks working successfully as lawyers in the US.

While this particular effect in medicine may well not be as large, this shows just one problem with affirmative action.

Other studies have looked into other negative effects with respect to AA. For example, see Affirmative Action: An Empirical Study, which shows that there actually is a systemic change in how people reclassify themselves to benefit from AA. Further, those who are actually in a position (motivated, completed the requisite education, etc.) to take advantage of the programs, tend to be middle to higher SES minorities.

Qft

 

[Kahreek]

Not everything is a stat. We have applicants who are unable to speak intelligible English (thick accents). We have applicants who are unable to articulate why they wish to be physicians other than they don't wish to be engineers or because it is a long family tradition going back many generations.

i guess honesty would be a very good trait to have as physician.

 

[OPanchor]

And way to necrobump this thread after 16 months to make everyone have that same feel.

Ah AgentB, we meet again.

 

[Aerus]

And way to necrobump this thread after 16 months to make everyone have that same feel.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Why so much Indian angst in pre allo this week? Looking around my med school class, things seem on the surface to be going alright.

 

[Aerus]

Why so much Indian angst in pre allo this week? Looking around my med school class, things seem on the surface to be going alright.

More like Asiatic Angst in general.

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

Why so much Indian angst in pre allo this week? Looking around my med school class, things seem on the surface to be going alright.

It's Pakistan's fault. It just has to be.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

More like Asiatic Angst in general.

Same response regardless of which slice of the Asian pie you cut.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

It's Pakistan's fault. It just has to be.

Solid.

 

[KnuxNole]

I honestly didn't know there were this many Indians on SDN to build up angst to begin with

FWIW, the Indians I do know don't feel angsty at all(and weren't forced into medicine!).

 

[pandaman2000]

Old thread but...

It's not an Indian thing, it's an Asian race as a whole disadvantage.

Welcome to the real world though. We just have to work harder with the background/resources you were given.

 

[487806]

Ah AgentB, we meet again.

Lol sorry about my harshness. I think it didn't wear off from that traditionalist indian culture thread. Plus why revive a sad thread?

 

[487806]

Old thread but...

It's not an Indian thing, it's an Asian race as a whole disadvantage.

Welcome to the real world though. We just have to work harder with the background/resources you were given.

And the main cause of this is traditionalism and feudalistic honor. It's a positive feedback system. One asian family forces the children to pursue medicine to provide honor to the family. Then more asian families force their children to pursue medicine to promote honor to their families, because of envy or admiration of the first asian family's success. Then it goes out of control. Competition is an essential element of asian traditionalism, which is why asians tend to be ORMs. Modernized families of all races produce very successful, versatile and talented children who pursue their interests (medicine in this case) with interest and passion, not some idealistic notion of honor

 

[Kahreek]

i am not sure if that is the main reason.

 

[487806]

i am not sure if that is the main reason.

for a majority of instances (especially among indians), traditionalism is the exact reason for their pursuit of medicine

 

[OPanchor]

More like Asiatic Angst in general.

This seems like an issue you clearly have no business with except to talk smack. Bai

 

[Codynna]

Affirmative action is something I still struggle with as far as whether I think it should be utilized or not, but it's positive effects are well documented.
Did any of you actually read or look into the study by Richard Sander. There are many parameters that the study failed to account for. Am not saying he's wrong, but here are a few papers published by professors at yale reviewing his work and calling it bogus.
Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks published in the Yale Review: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2230&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2520ian%2520ayres%2520and%2520richard%2520brooks%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CDsQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.law.yale.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2230%2526context%253Dfss_papers%26ei%3D8pDDUe_bAcXv0gHl94CwCg%26usg%3DAFQjCNFhSP6ysEyZ9Sgva5WlS7sitlTJhg%26sig2%3D1FDvFYRDpXt_trzFex61aw%26bvm%3Dbv.48175248%2Cd.dmQ%26cad%3Drja#search=%22ian%20ayres%20richard%20brooks%22. If you're too lazy to read their entire article, theres a summary article on it at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2005/04/sanding_down_sander.html.

The point am making is that the effect Sanders talk about "Mismatch Effect" is very controversial and in my opinion is totally bogus. Whether affirmative action is a god policy or not is still up to debate, but it should not be based off a bogus claim like Mismatch Effect that Sanders detailed.

 

[487806]

Affirmative action is something I still struggle with as far as whether I think it should be utilized or not, but it's positive effects are well documented.
Did any of you actually read or look into the study by Richard Sander. There are many parameters that the study failed to account for. Am not saying he's wrong, but here are a few papers published by professors at yale reviewing his work and calling it bogus.
Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks published in the Yale Review: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2230&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2520ian%2520ayres%2520and%2520richard%2520brooks%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CDsQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.law.yale.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2230%2526context%253Dfss_papers%26ei%3D8pDDUe_bAcXv0gHl94CwCg%26usg%3DAFQjCNFhSP6ysEyZ9Sgva5WlS7sitlTJhg%26sig2%3D1FDvFYRDpXt_trzFex61aw%26bvm%3Dbv.48175248%2Cd.dmQ%26cad%3Drja#search=%22ian%20ayres%20richard%20brooks%22. If you're too lazy to read their entire article, theres a summary article on it at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2005/04/sanding_down_sander.html.

The point am making is that the effect Sanders talk about "Mismatch Effect" is very controversial and in my opinion is totally bogus. Whether affirmative action is a god policy or not is still up to debate, but it should not be based off a bogus claim like Mismatch Effect that Sanders detailed.

The url got somehow messed up. On a related side note, I'm pretty sure in few years, affirmative action (of all types) will be effectively overturned soon. This is an extraconstitutional measure, which for obvious reasons has flaws and is doing more sociological harm to all parties involved.

I agree that Sander's "Mismatch Effect" is a flawed assertion, but I support his belief that affirmative action itself is a flawed intervention. It worked in the 1960s and 1970s as a way to enforce the Civil Rights legislation into the work forces. However, in today's world, no one (including URMs and women etc.) shouldn't be given preference based on innate factors. This paradoxically results in discrimination against them. Think about it this way: let's say blacks and Hispanics benefit significantly from AA and are allowed to enter top schools with lower stats. Doesn't this essentially prove the "racist" assertion that they aren't as smart as whites and Asians who got in with higher scores? Sure, this is an idiotic assertion, but some people actually believe this is the case, so affirmative action is fueling discrimination that it hopes to suppress. This is essentially the Mismatch Effect in action (which I don't support, but I'm not surprised if many people do support.)

 

[sakabato93]

And the main cause of this is traditionalism and feudalistic honor. It's a positive feedback system. One asian family forces the children to pursue medicine to provide honor to the family. Then more asian families force their children to pursue medicine to promote honor to their families, because of envy or admiration of the first asian family's success. Then it goes out of control. Competition is an essential element of asian traditionalism, which is why asians tend to be ORMs. Modernized families of all races produce very successful, versatile and talented children who pursue their interests (medicine in this case) with interest and passion, not some idealistic notion of honor

You're absolutely right.

 

[TexasSurgeon]

Not everything is a stat. We have applicants who are unable to speak intelligible English (thick accents). We have applicants who are unable to articulate why they wish to be physicians other than they don't wish to be engineers or because it is a long family tradition going back many generations.

Wow. Have you really interviewed people who have said this stuff?

 

[Dbate]

"A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action" by Richard Sandler in Stanford Law Review
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/rubinfeldd/SanderFINAL.pdf

Here is a well thought out statistical analysis in the context of law school admissions. It demonstrates that, because affirmative action puts people into a more competitive school than they would have otherwise attended, minorities have higher attrition rates, lower bar passage rates, and resulting challenges in finding a job. In the absence of affirmative action, there would actually be more blacks working successfully as lawyers in the US.

While this particular effect in medicine may well not be as large, this shows just one problem with affirmative action.

Other studies have looked into other negative effects with respect to AA. For example, see Affirmative Action: An Empirical Study, which shows that there actually is a systemic change in how people reclassify themselves to benefit from AA. Further, those who are actually in a position (motivated, completed the requisite education, etc.) to take advantage of the programs, tend to be middle to higher SES minorities.

I think this is probably one of the little acknowledged downsides in Affirmative Action.

At my university (a top school), the black kids dropped out like flies in the introductory chem and science classes.

These kids were objectively smart (i.e. ACT 32+, Ranked in the top 5 of their high school class, etc.), so if they went to a less rigorous school i have no doubt they would be physicians. But since Affirmative Action bumps people up, it ultimately suppresses their performance and leads to a decrease in the total number of minority physicians.

Every study that has been performed has shown that Affirmative Action has zero impact on the number of minorities that are admitted to college. It simply alters where they matriculate. And as a result, there are fewer minorities with the stats to apply to graduate schools.


I can't wait for the Supreme Court to eliminate Affirmative Action. It is a terrible policy.

It is not only unfair, but it does significant psychological damage to the recipients. It causes URMs to doubt themselves and objectively (and wrongly) places them in environments where they will not be as successful.

 

[nabilesmail]

Are you sure they were also high stats students. I totally understand your point but it seems false with 32 ACT etc.

I would imagine the problem is AA allows the matriculation of ethnic people with lower stats to join a school with a much more competitive student body. When classes are based on a curve, these students either dropout, get discouraged, or are not able to keep a competitive GPA for grad school- This would all make logical sense.

 

[Dbate]

Are you sure they were also high stats students. I totally understand your point but it seems false with 32 ACT etc.

I would imagine the problem is AA allows the matriculation of ethnic people with lower stats to join a school with a much more competitive student body. When classes are based on a curve, these students either dropout, get discouraged, or are not able to keep a competitive GPA for grad school- This would all make logical sense.

People at top schools like to show off, so they talk about their grades and test scores.

A 32 ACT places you in the bottom 25 percent of freshmen at my school. And being ranked 5th in your class places you in the bottom 40%.

All the classes are curved to a B+, so with those stats you (based on expectation) barely have above a B average.

Also, our school did a study and found that the science classes here have students who are on average more qualified in terms of test scores and high school GPA. So getting a 32 and being ranked 5th in your class places you near the bottom 10% of the class in most science classes on campus.

 

[qwerty89]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6ImP-gJvas

Start at 19:01

Also a video about the effects of AA around the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99CYQRtEGMw

Regarding AA in India:

Peter Robinson: Now that's the second piece of this. Why should it be that affirmative action should increase the resentment toward untouchables?

Thomas Sowell: Because if there are 100 jobs there and three of them have been set aside for--and three untouchables are actually able to make use of the set-asides for them, then everybody who lost a job will say he would have been hired if it only had been the untouchables hadn't grabbed these. So there may be 50 people seething with anger at not having gotten these three jobs, but had there been no untouchables, 47 of them wouldn't have gotten the jobs anyway.

Peter Robinson: I see.

Thomas Sowell: And so you create a resentment out of all proportion to the actual benefits that have been transferred.

Peter Robinson: You write that although India has had this policy of affirmative action for many decades, "violent incidents toward untouchables never fell below 13,000 a year during the 1980s and actually rose to more than 20,000 a year during the 1990s."

 

[Plue00]

for a majority of instances (especially among indians), traditionalism is the exact reason for their pursuit of medicine

And what's wrong with that? How about white families encouraging their kids to join the military or be rock stars, or whatever they do. I don't see that as anything bad.

Should people look down on Asians just because their parents want them to have a stable future?

It seems like nowadays, you can openly talk crap about Asians, but as soon as someone says something negative about other minorities, people go ape shiit.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

And what's wrong with that? How about white families encouraging their kids to join the military or be rock stars, or whatever they do. I don't see that as anything bad.

Should people look down on Asians just because their parents want them to have a stable future?

It seems like nowadays, you can talk crap about Asians openly, but as soon as you say something negative about other minorities, people go ape shiit.

Methinks your racism-detector is a might more sensitive towards Asian-aimed negativity. We (the non-Asians) aren't the ones trapped and complaining about this situation, the Asian OP is. We're just highlighting the facts as we see them.

 

[doritos4lyfe]

Yikes, some of these responses! I am really freaking thankful that the new MCAT will have sociology content.

 

[Pons Asinorum]

Yikes, some of these responses! I am really freaking thankful that the new MCAT will have sociology content.

I know, right!

 

[Codynna]

I think this is probably one of the little acknowledged downsides in Affirmative Action.

At my university (a top school), the black kids dropped out like flies in the introductory chem and science classes.

These kids were objectively smart (i.e. ACT 32+, Ranked in the top 5 of their high school class, etc.), so if they went to a less rigorous school i have no doubt they would be physicians. But since Affirmative Action bumps people up, it ultimately suppresses their performance and leads to a decrease in the total number of minority physicians.

Every study that has been performed has shown that Affirmative Action has zero impact on the number of minorities that are admitted to college. It simply alters where they matriculate. And as a result, there are fewer minorities with the stats to apply to graduate schools.


I can't wait for the Supreme Court to eliminate Affirmative Action. It is a terrible policy.

It is not only unfair, but it does significant psychological damage to the recipients. It causes URMs to doubt themselves and objectively (and wrongly) places them in environments where they will not be as successful.

Again I can't help but reiterate the fact that this idea has been thoroughly rejected by many scholars. To be honest, I dont think affirmative action will be completely removed from the American system Although to me its reverse discrimination, I really do feel like it greatly benefits the US. In the long run, aa policies can help remove disparities seen between URMs and the general population. Until these disparities are gone, I feel our society will continue to be racist.

 

[487806]

And what's wrong with that? How about white families encouraging their kids to join the military or be rock stars, or whatever they do. I don't see that as anything bad.

Should people look down on Asians just because their parents want them to have a stable future?

It seems like nowadays, you can openly talk crap about Asians, but as soon as someone says something negative about other minorities, people go ape shiit.

Dude what are you even blabbering about? your analogy to asian traditionalism to white families encouraging kids to join the military is comparing apples to oranges. If you have no problem with traditionalism, by all means have fun. I wasn't even looking down on asians, just reiterating the flaws of traditionalism found in the other thread. Your support for traditionalism means you're ok with asian parents deciding what's right for their children. Sure, fine. But a sense of independence is crucial and parents must realize when to stop controlling their children's future.

Argue and whine all you want. Traditionalism is nothing more than modern version of feudalism. A flawed system used by irrational, stubborn parents to exercise their absolute authority over their children's future in the idealistic desire of protecting honor. Asian families have the right to GUIDE, NOT CONTROL their children's future. Thoroughly understand the differnce between GUIDING and CONTROLLING before you and other traditionalist supporters go off with your rant.

 

[487806]

Yikes, some of these responses! I am really freaking thankful that the new MCAT will have sociology content.

I know. Hopefully it'll open the minds to the careful differences between guiding and controlling, as well as the balance between independence and order.

Related side topic, traditionalists generally support a stratified society. To them, competitiom is the key to success, and those who fail in their goals are deemed to be a dishonor to their families. Of course, this is extreme, but look around you and closely examine traditionalist families. You'll often see a feeling of superiority and pride.

 

[487806]

Again I can't help but reiterate the fact that this idea has been thoroughly rejected by many scholars. To be honest, I dont think affirmative action will be completely removed from the American system Although to me its reverse discrimination, I really do feel like it greatly benefits the US. In the long run, aa policies can help remove disparities seen between URMs and the general population. Until these disparities are gone, I feel our society will continue to be racist.

I support affirmative action as a progressive reform to help the disadvantaged, such as improving their living conditions, providing better education etc. However, I condemn quotas and reduction of stats to be more lenient to URMs in hopes of shaping for diversity. That is a racist insult to all parties: racist to URMs, because that implies that high stats from their part are unlikely as admitted by schools; and racist to ORMs because schools require higher stats from them. Get rid of leniency based on race and instead focus on improving the conditions for the disadvantaged.

 

[Anathema]

I've seen the effects of guiding and controlling and personally I'd rather be controlled. That's just me though since I don't like working fast food or not knowing what to do with my life, some people like the thrill though.

 

[487806]

I've seen the effects of guiding and controlling and personally I'd rather be controlled. That's just me though since I don't like working fast food or not knowing what to do with my life, some people like the thrill though.

Sigh... By guiding, your parents are actively encouraging to pursue stable jobs in the long run and to follow your interests, but warn you the dangers of bad professions. Parents who guide are very supportive of their children's decision and work tirelessly to ensure their children will be successful in the long run. When children go awry, parents have every right to exercise discipline to maintain order.

Parents who control their children's lives are equivalent to dictators. Stay away from them as far as possible. Their plea to tradition is the same as the plea to absolute authority.

 

[Plue00]

Dude what are you even blabbering about? your analogy to asian traditionalism to white families encouraging kids to join the military is comparing apples to oranges. If you have no problem with traditionalism, by all means have fun. I wasn't even looking down on asians, just reiterating the flaws of traditionalism found in the other thread. Your support for traditionalism means you're ok with asian parents deciding what's right for their children. Sure, fine. But a sense of independence is crucial and parents must realize when to stop controlling their children's future.

Argue and whine all you want. Traditionalism is nothing more than modern version of feudalism. A flawed system used by irrational, stubborn parents to exercise their absolute authority over their children's future in the idealistic desire of protecting honor. Asian families have the right to GUIDE, NOT CONTROL their children's future. Thoroughly understand the differnce between GUIDING and CONTROLLING before you and other traditionalist supporters go off with your rant.

I know. Hopefully it'll open the minds to the careful differences between guiding and controlling, as well as the balance between independence and order.

Related side topic, traditionalists generally support a stratified society. To them, competitiom is the key to success, and those who fail in their goals are deemed to be a dishonor to their families. Of course, this is extreme, but look around you and closely examine traditionalist families. You'll often see a feeling of superiority and pride.

I didn't say anything about me supporting that some parents control what their kids do. Someone should probably learn how to read

I only said that I can understand them doing that. Does that make me a supporter? I said that it is definitely okay for parents to GUIDE (learn the word, please) their kids. And if their guidance leads them to pursue a career in what their parents wanted, that doesn't mean that their kids were forced into it.