169 1234
发新话题
打印【有26个人次参与评价】

微博摘

高中第一名GPA的通货膨胀

最近有人写文章赞扬三位大陆来的华人分别在波士顿三所高中取得第一名的成绩,笔者认为能取得第一名,的确不容易也值得庆贺。 当然,该三所高中是否属顶尖高中,笔者不了解,也不想进一步探讨,因为学习的目的并不在能否取得第一名,而是真正能学到知识。但笔者好奇的是这些称作波士顿顶尖的高中第一名,最后录取的学校好像并不属”顶尖”大学。

这些年来,由于出现太多的藤妈,高中第一名的GPA也水涨船高,正如当今的中国股市,节节攀升。十年前,家中老大拿高中第一名时的GPA是4.69,当时在场的几百位毕业生和家长们都齐声惊叫了一声“哇........”。待到四年前,老二得高中第一名时,她的GPA已是4.78,估计4.69的GPA在那时已不算是高的了,同样会场几百人齐声的"哇........"。好多美国学生家长在自言自语,"unbelievable!".  可事实是这个纪录也不断被打破,等到前些天老三得高中第一名时,这个GPA已是4.92, 看来这个最高GPA的纪录在不久的将来,亦会被华人学生打破。

GPA高说明现在学生修的大部分课程都是AP课(成绩A=5, B=4.....),当然只有在顶尖的高中才能有机会修这么多AP课,一般的高中是不会开设这么多的AP课程,这也从侧面说明了选择一个好学区的重要性。当然,在这些顶尖高中取得前几名的学生,一般来说会得到美国名校的Offer.  GPA是能否踏进美国名校的三个重要因素之一,且不可轻视了, 应尽早了解学校课程设置,且有计划的安排整个高中阶段的选课是学生家长应该关注的一个重要环节。

TOP

搬砖完毕,这几篇写得有点意思。

TOP

【陈晚博客】拼爹又拼妈的美国教育

http://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/45280/201405/18716.html

今年(2014)的1月24日,美国中文电视报道说:“有小诺贝尔奖之称的英特尔少年科学天才奖22日公布了总决赛的40强名单。来自硅谷的华裔女高中生孔祥悦因发现破解乳腺癌的基因序列入围。这位女孩是硅谷名校林布鲁克高中的高三学生。在与斯坦福大学博士后蔡尚合作中,她发现了一个能抑制癌细胞生长的基因序列,并因此入围今年三月将在华盛顿举行的英特尔少年科学天才奖总决赛。”

每当我看到如上类似的消息,我总会在心里悄悄地说上一句,呵呵,这肯定是拼爹或者拼妈的结果。为什么我会这样认为呢?这篇报道只提到了华裔女孩获奖的结果,而没有提及任何具体的过程。与女孩合作的斯坦福大学博士后蔡尚和女孩是什么关系?不是她爸?不是她妈?那这位博士后是不是她爸妈的朋友呢?如果统统都不是,那他是不是女孩爸妈拐弯抹角找到的关系呢?

美国学校经常让学生们搞各种各样的研究课题(project).在选择科研课题时,虽然老师给了学生很大的自由空间,但孩子们在选择课题时,总会不知不觉地接受父母的辅导或者最直接的指导。在某些课题上,与其说是考学生,还不如说是考家长。

比如我家大宝在初三做生物课题时,我就把我在美国大学当助教时辅导我学生做的科研题目灌输给了大宝。我为大宝设计变量和实验参数,辅导她购买生物试剂,具体指导她做实验。因为大宝的这个实验必须在家里完成,没有生物实验室做坚强的后盾,大宝的科研思路和实验方法都非常受限,她只能做到应付美国中学老师的要求而已。假如我还在美国名校就职,大宝的科研成果就会大大的不一样。我只要让她帮我养几个细胞,杀两只老鼠,做几个电泳,我就会在我的科研文章上署上她的大名,身为高中生的大宝,就会成为有科研论文发表的小科学家了。

理科科研如此,文科研究也同出一辙。在美国历史系就职的薛涌教授在他的新书<<跟着薛涌留学去>>里提及说,他就亲自辅导过他的女儿做罗马历史的课题。他帮女儿的具体过程都在他的书稿中,我在此不再赘言。

中国家长对孩子如此,美国家长也不会例外。有一次,我去二宝的初中参观科研成果展览。在玲琅满目的展览区,美国学生各种个样的科研成果让我大开眼界。刚刚上初二,就能研究人类化石了?当我站在一个化石展览区时,这个问题萦绕于我脑中,令我惊叹不已。就在我在好奇中佩服这个课题的小作者时,一位戴眼镜的美国男孩子走过来,给我仔细讲解了他的研究内容。不用说,他就是化石研究的作者了。我看他,个子矮矮的,身材瘦瘦的,还戴着个黑框眼镜,一幅典型的小科学家形象啊。讲到最后时,这位小男孩终于回答了我的疑问:我爸爸是搞化石研究的。

在美国拼爹和中国拼爹大不一样。在中国,拼爹主要是少数有权有势者的专利。在美国拼爹,大部分普通家长都是在身体力行的过程中,在学业和课外活动中提升自己的孩子。除了上述所言的学业领域,在美国学校的各种课外活动中,活跃着一大批的爹们。比如各种球类的教练,男女童子军的组织者,大都是由美国家长担任的。

除了拼爹,美国妈妈们的作用也不可忽视。最有趣的例子是,在我儿子就读的公文学校,天天接送孩子们的家长,几乎清一色都是世界各地的妈妈们。在这些妈妈中,又以印度妈妈为主力军。可以这么说吧,谁的妈妈精力旺盛,谁的妈妈不怕辛苦,谁的妈妈就是拼妈大赛中的英雄。在公文学校中,妈妈们不仅要负责接送,妈妈们还要辅导孩子写作业,最后还要判作业。很多中国妈妈因为工作太忙,实在拼不过特别能战斗的印度妈妈们了,最后只好让孩子退出公文学校。我送我家小宝去公文学校学了五年,最近也快坚持不住了,也在考虑是否要继续给他拔苗助长。

和中国大学不同的是,美国大学录取不仅仅取决于学生成绩,和拼爹拼妈紧密相连的各种课外活动,在美国大学的录取过程中起着非常重要的作用。我们可以这样认为,如果爸妈不进入孩子教育的具体角色中,想让孩子在美国进名校或者自信地成长,在美国几乎是不可能的。换个角度讲,当中国大陆的父母们把孩子抛到美国来读中学时,如果这些孩子的家长不能来美国陪伴孩子的成长,这样的孩子至少在美国中学就很难入主流。不是中国孩子能力不行,而是他们缺少来自父母对他们成长的直接参与。

仅仅上面的几个例子,我们就能看出在美国拼爹拼妈的重要性了。还有数不清的例子确实可以说明,在美国,拼爹拼妈同样重要。正因为如此,养育孩子不只是妈妈的责任,爸爸们必须也介入孩子的成长中来。据说成龙在孩子的成长过程中非常失职,有一次他接孩子放学,他居然不知道自己的孩子在哪个年级。坦率地说,成龙是忙忙碌碌的大牌,他的失职或许有情可原。而我们大部分的家长都没有成龙的本事,我一直认为,普通人的工作再重要,也没有孩子的成长重要。我觉得,如果想让孩子成龙,爸爸们就不能步成龙的后尘。

具体到我家,虽然我的三个孩子主要归我管,但孩子爸爸在孩子的成长过程中也花费了很多心血。在美国,医生是个高负荷的职业,孩子爸爸每天工作非常忙碌。他平时对孩子的亏欠,主要就靠周末来补课了。和孩子们谈心,带孩子们外出看电影,陪孩子参加各种课外活动,接送孩子参加体操比赛,诸如此类的帮助,孩子爸爸于润物细无声的亲情中,慢慢把他的育儿观渗透给了孩子。有句话说,男女搭配,干活不累。我想说的是,爸爸妈妈搭配,孩子幸福如醉。

美国学生家长如果能积极参与学校的活动,还有获奖的机会呢。从另外一个角度来看,美国学校非常鼓励学生家长能在学校的决策,义工,交流沟通等方面起到积极的作用。当家长参与学校建设时,有一个无法回避的事实:无论对哪位家长来说,生活忙碌,工作紧张,是每日生活的主旋律。在这种客观条件下,谁能吃苦,谁能拼,谁就能在众多的家长中鹤立鸡群。比如在我们校区,专门设立一个奖励家长的PIMA( Parent Involvement Matters Award)奖,哪位家长能获奖,不仅和家长投入的精力有关,也和家长在学校决策中所起到的作用紧密相关。



美国有一个最成功的拼爹例子,你知道它是什么吗?林书豪的成功,靠的就是拼爹。但林家的拼爹,走得不是歪门邪道,而是踏踏实实的父子同行。身为理科博士,林书豪的父亲对篮球并不精通。为了挖掘儿子的篮球天赋,林父经常在自家后院的篮球场陪孩子练球。为了指导林书豪,林父从录像带中领悟篮球技巧,然后再具体指导儿子练球。林书豪的启蒙教练,不是别人,而是他的爸爸。




在美国,有无数的爸爸妈妈们为了孩子的教育呕心沥血。为了孩子们的全面成长,不拼爹不行,不拼妈也不行。

TOP

我在中美两国截然不同的奥数经历: 有感中国孩子丢了奥赛冠军

2015-07-19


21年来头一遭,美国奥数队击败中国夺冠

我们去哈佛比赛时,想的是能行就行,不行就吃点烤肉回家。但我猜想北京“顺天府学”孩子们的心情则是完全不同的。估计老师会和他们说,他们不仅代表学校的荣誉,还代表中国人的荣誉……只有考好了才有可能上哈佛这样的好大学,只有上了好大学才算成才,只有成才了才对得起父母和老师。

这次中国队没有拿到奥赛金牌,其实并不代表什么,但因为国人对这块金牌所寄予的含义太多了,所以估计有关部门又会紧张起来。我们对奥数、对古文的态度到底是什么呢?或者说,我们对给予后代什么样的教育究竟是怎么想的呢?不能总是因为一件事儿、一句话,就改变一整代学生的命运吧!

作者:Tiger Gao,留美高中生,就读于美国十大私立高中之一的圣保罗学校(St. Paul's School,简称:SPS)。

........................................

这两天,一则“噩耗”从泰国清迈传来——美国队在国际数学奥林匹克竞赛上击败老牌冠军中国,时隔21年再度夺冠。这不仅让很多中国人意想不到,甚至连一些国外媒体也感到费解。奥数向来是中国人手中最自豪的一张王牌,而今这“手到擒来”的荣誉却被美国人抢走,于是很多中国人开始难受了。

我的奥赛经历

说起奥赛,我在美国也参加过。去年冬天,我和另外9名孩子代表SPS(编者注:圣保罗学校)去哈佛参加了“哈佛—MIT数学竞赛”。比赛前,我以为老师会对我们进行什么强化培训,没想到,只组织了一次集体做题就算是备战了。比赛当天,我们天不亮就起床,昏昏沉沉地赶到了哈佛。我们到了比赛地点,却不知该去哪里报到,而竟然没有人为此着急。

大家在大厅里懒散地闲逛,边听音乐边说笑。突然,我发现了亲切熟悉的面孔——一大群中国孩子,估计有二十多人。学长说,这是来自北京“顺天府学”的孩子们,这个机构已经连续好几年派孩子来参赛了。当时我就懵了——我们几个来波士顿,除了参赛,还主要是为了进城吃顿好的,而中国学生却专程组团不远万里飞来参赛!我对他们的坚毅与努力油然而生敬佩,同时也意识到,我们SPS又要被虐了。

第一场考试结束后,监考老师公布答案。每念出一个答案,坐在大厅中央的中国孩子们就会大喊“Yes!”;十道题,我听见了十个“Yes”,最后还夹着一句中文:“全对啦!”只见坐在他们附近的美国孩子们面面相觑,对这个不知道是什么来头的队伍深深疑惑——他们是怎么全对的?

我从这些“顺天府学”的孩子们身上,看到了自己的影子。为了小升初,我小学二年级就开始学奥数,五年级进入白热化状态:每周六上午去八中的“坑班”,下午去实验中学的“坑班”,到了晚上还要赶到四中的“坑班”。其中给我留下最深“心理阴影”的,便是实验中学的“老教协”奥数班。在那里,我考过前五十,也考过六百名开外,成绩像过山车一样忽上忽下,一家人的情绪也难免因此起起伏伏。老教协的题又刁又难,即使我得过几个数学竞赛奖,但在那里仍是摸不到门道。

美国人的“数学观”

美国孩子对待数学的态度非常平和。他们把数学视为一门与其他学科无异的课程,并不觉得“得数学者得天下”,也不觉得数学会帮助、亦或阻挡他们人生前进的道路。我一个从纽约来的好朋友,他数学考试基本都是70多分,但这并不妨碍他在学校的发展。去年,他的文学课是年级第一,也是我们年级第一个选入合唱团的,更是非常有才的演员…他做着他喜欢的事情,没有人因为他数学不好而认定他智商低、学习差、未来暗淡。

而美国的数学人才也不是因为应对升学才努力学习数学。我宿舍里的一个哥们儿,不仅在学线性几何,还同时学三门AP级的生物课;他的双胞胎弟弟更厉害,初二时不仅学完了AP微积分、电脑科学,而且还都拿的5分。更让我受到震动的是,和一些中国数学天才没有任何爱好的形象不同,他们每天打壁球、玩游戏、交女朋友…什么都没落下。那个哥哥告诉我,他数学和生物这么好并不是因为父母逼他学,而是他非常喜欢,而且长大后很想当医生。

对比中美关于数学的看法,有一点是相同的:数学很重要,数学好会非常受人尊敬;但也有一点是非常不同的:美国人并不依照数学的好坏去判断孩子,更不会把孩子分成三六九等。

我们走歪了

本来学奥数不是什么问题,但当奥数成为了上好学校的敲门砖、当大家为了这块砖拼死拼活时,它就会成为问题。

我们去哈佛比赛时,我们想的是尽力而为、能行就行,不行就吃点烤肉回家。但我猜想“顺天府学”孩子们的心情则是完全不同的。估计老师会和他们说,他们不仅代表学校的荣誉,还代表中国人的荣誉……只有考好了才有可能上哈佛这样的好大学,只有上了好大学才算成才,只有成才了才对得起父母和老师。孩子们从小到大在这种思想下耳濡目染;可想而知,奥数已被赋予了太多社会内涵,而这些孩子所承受的也太多了。

在SPS,每个孩子都会根据自己的能力去选课。有的孩子想多学点,那就上Honors课程;有的孩子要学简单点,那就去Regular课程。在量力而行的过程中,一个一个台阶往上走、慢慢积累、逐渐成长。在中国则不一样,小学奥数就涵盖了初中知识,初一试卷的附加题就有高中题目。中国的奥数学习不是一个一个台阶往上走,而是跳着往前赶,也因此大大超出了大多数孩子心智所能承受的范围。

这次中国队没有拿到奥赛金牌,其实并不代表什么,但因为国人对这块金牌所寄予的含义太多了,所以估计有关部门又会紧张起来,想着要为祖国荣誉而重振奥数。虽然北京已经严令禁止中学根据奥数录取学生,也禁止开办奥数班,但我猜测,奥数班会不会因此又重打鼓另开张呢?就像前一阵教育部门提出要减少古文在课程中的含量,语文课本纷纷改版。没想到过了几天,习大大去曲阜时说,古文不能丢,于是有关部门又开始印新课本、加古文。

我们对奥数、对古文的态度到底是什么呢?或者说,我们对给予后代什么样的教育究竟是怎么想的呢?不能总是因为一件事儿、一句话,就改变一整代学生的命运吧!


本文原载于微信公众号“少年Tiger漂流记"

TOP

这次米国奥数队击败老牌第一中国队获得第一,哗然了

米奥数队成员,俩老中娃,一老印娃,俩老米娃。

看了一眼加拿大队员名单,哇,四老中娃!
哈哈哈

TOP

为什么美国名校里的那群学霸,不吃不睡也要拼命读书 ?

2015-02-04 秦春华

去过美国顶尖大学的小伙伴们往往会发现那里的学生总是忙个不停,也许大家总是想当然的以为是因为实行了宽进严出制度,极高的淘汰率迫使学生不敢偷懒。其实不然,顶尖大学的入学竞争那是相当激烈的,高昂的学费才是驱动学生努力学习的最大因素之一。主页君今天就以这篇文章带大家看看到底为什么美国顶尖大学的学生总是如此勤奋。

我在芝加哥大学经济系有一个小朋友迈克,今年刚上大学一年级。芝大经济系诺贝尔奖得主云集,是闻名全球的“芝加哥学派”的发祥地。在他的帮助下,我像一个大一新生一样背起书包,走进他们的LiberalArts课堂听课。芝大的General Education在全美独树一帜,素以苛刻的标准和繁重的学业压力而著称,但也正因为此才保证了芝大本科人才培养的过硬质量。这一切大概要归功于哈钦斯校长在上个世纪30年代启动的本科教学改革。在那次堪称革命性的变革中,芝大建立了至今仍然具有重要影响的General Education课程体系和小班教学模式。

我选了一门希腊思想史的讨论课。本来我还想多选一些,但迈克建议我最好只选一门,从头到尾听下来。我听了很不服气。想当年,我在北大读书时一学期至少要选十门课。现在虽然年纪大了点,芝大的课程难一点,但也不至于差距这么大。迈克很直率地告诉我,他一学期只选了五门课,已经快要崩溃了。我将信将疑。

果不其然,这门课的难度极大。学生平均两到三个星期要读完一本像柏拉图的《理想国》这样的著作(芝大Liberal Arts课程从不讲活着的人的思想)。一学期下来大约要读四本原著,还不包括补充阅读材料。在课堂上,一般会有一个学生先做一个15分钟左右的报告,然后大家开始讨论。一节课90分钟,老师只讲大约50分钟,而且老师讲课并非一个人的表演,会提很多问题,学生也可以随时插话提问,参与讨论。课后还有大量的作业。学生在课后必须要读原著,否则既不能完成作业,也无法参与课程讨论,而这些会统统计入学生的最终成绩。更为要害的是,上这样的课,从一开始就必须非常努力,也不能逃课,否则,一步赶不上,步步赶不上。有一次我因为要参加一个会议,落了一节课,结果后面立即陷入听不懂的状态。

上完课后,迈克带我到食堂去吃饭。他几乎是连跑带颠地取完东西——顺带帮我也取了午餐——坐下之后就从书包里拿出书和笔,一边吃一边在书上写写画画。说是吃饭,他基本上是在看书,饭其实是在五分钟之内吃完的。我问他怎么会这么紧张。他告诉我下午化学实验课的内容还没有完成,而如果完不成的话,课就没法上了。这使我大为惊奇。迈克的专业是经济学,如果要选数学课还可以理解,但和化学简直是风马牛不相及啊。

匆匆吃完饭后,迈克对我说,下个星期他会非常忙,因为要开始期中考试了。我听明白了他的意思——他不一定有时间和我见面。我马上说,没关系,你先忙,我们可以两个星期后再见面。迈克面露难色地说,恐怕也不行。这些期中考试会一直持续到学期结束,也就是说,是和期末考试连在一起了。

那一瞬间,我忽然明白了为什么迈克以及其他芝大的学生那么忙,以至于几乎连吃饭的时间也没有。但不要以为这些学生只是在读书。迈克每个周日要到城里去上班,平时还要参加和欣赏各种各样的音乐会。

相比而言,国内本科学生的单位课程压力要小很多。北大学生算是辛苦,但对于一些特别聪明的理科生和大部分文科生来说,日子要轻松得多——他(她)可以偷懒。我上大学的时候也很辛苦,每天只睡四、五个小时,但我的大部分时间是用在读自己喜欢的书和社会活动上,真正用在课业上的时间并不多。即便如此,我的成绩也还不错。原因很简单,每次期末考试之前,我就把班里笔记记得最好的同学的笔记借来抄一遍,往往得分比他还要高。他的笔记好到什么程度呢——他可以把老师讲的每一句话都记下来,包括老师讲的笑话,然后在笔记本上注明(笑声)。很久之后我才明白,这种在没钱复印的时候只能抄笔记的办法,实际上帮助我加深了对老师授课内容的理解;而那位笔记记得特别好的同学,也许因为记笔记时过于专心致志,反而忽略了老师讲课内容的实质。因此,我特别怀念那些既没有钱技术也不发达的日子,并且在我也成为一名教员之后,还以自己的亲身经历反复告诫学生们千万不要去认真地记笔记。后来有了钱,复印价格也大幅下降了,再也没有辛辛苦苦地抄过笔记,考试成绩反而没那么好了。

这种“临时抱佛脚”的偷懒在芝大几乎不可能发生。而且,和国内本科教育恰好相反,越是人文社会科学的课程,单位课业负担反而越重。因此,芝大学生在选课时非常谨慎,一定会根据自己的实际情况量力而行,绝对不会出现借人文社会科学课程来凑学分的情形——而这种情况在国内大学实在是太普遍了,越是文科学生越好混日子。

芝大学生很少偷懒的首要原因是选课制度。学校规定,学生选课是自由的。但在本科一二年级的Liberal Arts课程中,人文科学、社会科学和自然科学的课程都有相应的学分要求。最要害的是,在学生的选课目录中,小班讨论课必须要达到一定比例。如果说,上大课时学生还有可能偷懒的话,那么,在十来个人的小班讨论课上就无论如何偷不了懒。如果学生不读书,不完成课后作业,不要说听不懂老师在讲什么,就连讨论都插不上嘴。而且学生必须从一开始就非常努力,否则,稍有疏忽就会给后面带来无穷无尽的麻烦——就好像欠了高利贷,一旦还不上,利滚利就会越滚越多,最后想补救都来不及。每一门课程的成绩都包括了平时成绩、期中考试和期末考试。因此,只靠期末考试前背背笔记就蒙混过关的情况是绝对不可能发生的。

目前,国内许多大学也实行了自由选课制度,对人文科学、社会科学和自然科学的课程也提出了学分要求,但仅具其形。如果没有小班讨论课和讨论课学分比例限制作为支持的话,自由选课制度也许会降低本科教育质量。原因在于,自由选课制类似于自由市场制度。在一个课程市场中,课程的受欢迎程度有可能成为评判课程质量的标准。因此,教师上大课的动力要大于上小班课的动力——小班课更累,而且难以体现出教师的受欢迎程度。学生出于畏难情绪和追求高分的心理,有可能会倾向于选修那些容易通过或老师给分比较高的课程。因此,从表面上看,学生可能选修了很多门课,甚至选修了双学位,但实际上这些课程的单位课业负担并不大,对学生的智慧和思维并没有提出强有力的挑战,很难保证教育教学质量。这就是学生们自己形容的所谓“水”课和“水”系。

迈克告诉我,芝大学生很少偷懒的根本原因在于,上芝大的费用太高,每年的学费和生活费接近6万美元。因此,在芝大学习的每一天,上的每一堂课,都可以相应地折算成学费。他必须要在芝大学习尽可能多的东西,否则对不起爸爸妈妈付出的高昂成本。换句话说,当每一个学生付出的学费同样多时,在成本既定的情况下,谁学到的东西越多,就意味着谁获得的超额利润越高。因此,每个学生都卯足了劲儿拼命地学习。对于那些依靠奖学金读书的学生而言更是如此。一方面,奖学金是按照年度发放的。学生如果不努力,成绩不好,很可能意味着下一年度会失去奖学金;另一方面,那些本来上不起芝大的学生因为获得奖学金而更加珍惜学习机会,并且希望毕业之后能够取得成就反馈母校曾经的帮助。从心理学上说,这种内生性的激励效果最为显著。

我原来以为,美国顶尖大学学生很少偷懒是因为他们实行“宽进严出”制度,淘汰率高,在过程中迫使学生不敢偷懒。这可能是一个误读。实际上,对于美国最顶尖的大学来说,入学竞争极为激烈,条件一点也不“宽”——入门条件“宽”的多数是公立大学和社区大学;除了像加州理工学院等少数大学外,许多大学的淘汰率并不算很高。芝大也是如此。尽管学校非常重视学生培养质量,但通常情况下,也不会太难为学生。只不过,对学生而言,如果成绩单上都是C的话,不要说自己看着不好意思,在就业时也会丧失竞争力——就业机构并不会因为你仅仅是芝大毕业生就会雇佣你。在竞争激烈的人才市场上,如果你不能获得一个具有理想收入的职位,那就意味着你为上大学所付出的巨额投资将付之东流,这显然是学生和家庭都不能接受的。

相比而言,中国大学——即使是最顶尖的北大、清华——的学费很低,一年只有5000元人民币,还不到1000美元。除了一些家庭经济困难学生——国家和学校往往对这部分学生有减免学费的政策——之外,许多学生并不觉得上大学的成本有多高,或者说,他(她)们对于上大学的成本的直观感受并不强烈。因此,多学一点和少学一点对他(她)们而言是无差异的。另一方面,由于高考之前的重复性训练的确是过于艰苦,学生进入大学之后难免会产生出一些混混日子的想法。此外,由于大学课程和社会需求脱节,用人机构不能从课程成绩单中观测到学生的实际能力,只能通过替代性的指标——比如学校名气、社会活动,甚至是父母身份——做出录用与否的决定,反过来也影响到学生对课程学习的重视。因此,美国学生上大学以后异常辛苦——而且越是人文学科学生越辛苦——的现象恰好相反,中国学生上大学以后相对要轻松得多——而且越是人文学科学生越轻松——这在很大程度上降低了中国大学本科教育的质量。

美国顶尖大学学生很少偷懒这一现象,看起来简单,但实际上是和美国的私立大学制度、就业市场的多样性以及社会诚信等紧密联系在一起,不可分割。美国教育是与其社会制度、经济制度和文化背景等一系列因素相适应相匹配的复杂系统,彼此之间相互影响,相互制约。忽略了这些隐藏在现象背后的制度性因素而单纯倡导甚至移植某些具体措施和政策——比如所谓的“宽进严出”和AP课程,等等——是不可能收到理想效果的。

本文系转载,By 秦春华,From 新浪-爱生活专栏,删节版发表于《光明日报》2014年6月24日第13版,题目为《不偷懒的美国大学生给我们的启发》

TOP

U.S. TEAM TAKES FIRST PLACE AT INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICAL OLYMPIAD
Chiang Mai, Thailand: The six-person team representing the United States took first place at the 56th International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO). The 2015 IMO was held in Chiang Mai, Thailand, from July 4 to 13.


IMO Team with their USAMO Medals
Back Row: Michael Kural, Yang Liu, Ryan Alweiss, Shyam Narayanan
Front Row: Allen Liu, David Stoner

IMO scores are based on the number of points scored by individual team members on six problems. The problems are taken in sets of three in 4.5 hour sessions over two days. The U.S. team’s combined score of 185 edged out the Chinese team’s score of 181 and the Republic of Korea’s third-place score of 161.

Members of the U.S. team included Ryan Alweiss, Allen Liu, Yang Liu, Shyam Narayanan, and David Stoner, all of whom were awarded gold medals, and Michael Kural, who earned a silver medal, just one point away from the gold. The last time the U.S. team took first place was in 1994.


IMO Team at the Awards Banquet
Row 1: Mark Saul, MAA Director of Competition; Ravi Vakil, IMO lecturer; IMO Hostess; Alex Zhai, Assistant coach; Ryan Alweiss, Gold Medal winner; Shyam Narayanan, Gold Medal winner; Allen Liu, Gold Medal winner; Hostess; Po-Shen Loh, National Coach
Row 2: John Berman, Assistant Coach; Michael Kural, Silver Medal winner; Yang Liu, Gold Medal winner; Michael Heath, U.S. Consul General, Chiang Mai, Thailand; David Stoner, Gold Medal winner

Participants on the U.S. team were selected through a series of competitions organized by the Mathematical Association of America (MAA), culminating with the USA Mathematical Olympiad. The six team members joined 48 of their peers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in June for three weeks of immersion in problem solving at MAA’s Mathematical Olympiad Summer Program (MOSP). Established in 1974 to train the first U.S. team to the IMO, MOSP has expanded over the years and broadened its goals. MOSP is organized by the MAA, which sustains the program each year with the support of a number of donors including the Akamai Foundation and the Simons Foundation.

Po-Shen Loh, who is a member of the mathematics faculty at CMU, directs MOSP and leads the USA IMO team. Loh is excited about the success of the six students, and sees the success of the team as an outgrowth of the extended goals of the program. As quoted in an article posted this week on the Simons Foundation website, Loh notes that "the focus of our program should be to recognize that we have 54 of the most impactful high school students in terms of potential, and we should help them be successful long-term."

About the IMO: The International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) is the World Championship Mathematics Competition for High School students and is held annually in a different host country. The first IMO was held in 1959 in Romania, with seven countries participating. Today more than 100 countries from six continents participate.

News Date:
Tuesday, July 14, 2015

TOP

TOP

皮皮蝦: 国际奥数之天龙八卦(1-3)

2015-07-18 皮皮蝦 无限主义

皮皮蝦:【国际奥数之天龙八卦(一)】

我没写错,是天龙八卦,不是天龙八部。本来想叫射雕英雄传呢,但发现整篇文章可以分八个部分,就叫天龙八卦吧。据说,天龙八部真正的意思并非八个部分,本虾还是别用吧,免得显得咱没文化。

(一)最牛的是哪几国?

这国际奥数最初开始的时候是东欧九个国家搞的,第一届在罗马尼亚举行。后来就发展到现在有一百多个国家参加。

开始的时候东欧国家特别是前苏联或俄罗斯占尽鳌头。俄国老毛子数学的确牛,一直独领风骚。后来由于有中美两大牛的先后加入,退居二三席,直到2010年基本上总是位列三甲,不知道为什么近几年每次都位列第四,今年更是位列第八。

中国1985年首次参加的时候排名在三十二位,1988年开始占据主导地位,稳定保持在多数时候团体第一、偶而团体第二名的位置(1996年有了个闪失得了第六)。中国奥数的地位相当于乒乓球在国际上的地位。这次被美国队扳倒,据说与国内政策的变化有关。由于高考不加分,奥数在国内一下子冷清了许多,学霸们都转行学SAT和AP了。还是美国牛啊,美国大学的世界一流地位硬是隔着太平洋把中国高考指挥棒的方向给扭转了。以后美国队夺冠的可能性会不会更大了?

美国队成绩一直稳定优异,几乎总是排名第二和第三。这次夺冠的一个半华裔Allen Liu和Yang Liu是二进宫,二次都拿了金牌。在此之前的夺冠记录要追朔到二十一年前的1994年。那一次更牛B,参赛六名选手全部满分!估计是前无古人后无来者呀!最亮眼的是,美国能培养出天才来,这一点后面几卦会详细展开。

这次韩朝两国位列第三和第四,非常吸引眼球。有人说,其实高丽棒子才是最大赢家。如果两队合并尽出精英,考虑到人家的人口基数,这成绩是很亮眼的。虽然本虾上次的帖子给出了团体排名,为防信友忘性大,本虾再贴一遍。


韩国成绩好自不必说,东亚国家嘛!数学传统、儒家教育的家推和自推、还有东亚人平均智商最高的研究,使得这个结果不出意料。韩国2012年拿过一次团体冠军呢!可是朝鲜这个闭关锁国的国家怎么也排在第四位?难道主体思想的精神原子弹这么有威力?还是成绩不好回去后会下煤矿或炮决?仔细看看,人家的历史战绩不差呢,团体拿过二次第五、二次第七,个人战绩有一人曾连续得了三块金牌(2011-2013年)。这次他没来(己毕业),否则会不会让团体更上层楼?

东亚另外几家(越台新)近年团体表现也不錯。越南拿过几次三四五名,台湾去年是第三,新加坡2011年第三。只有日本成绩差强(当然不是差强人意,因为本虾就不在乎它好不好),基本上是十名二十名开外。

有人对德国的成绩有一点不明白。德国人举世公认一流,怎么总分那么靠后?首先,德国个人成绩是很厉害的。你看名人堂(Hall of Fame)榜单上前十名有五个德国人(包括一名前东德人,第十名两人并列)。再说他们2006年拿过团体第四名。德国人以团队合作超强著称(看他们的足球,就是一架运转极佳的日尔曼战车),可是奥数团体总分其实是六位个人选手的分数加合,听上去是团体,其实没有什么合作。这不是德国人的强项。再贴一遍名人堂榜单。



皮皮蝦:【国际奥数之天龙八卦(二)】
(二)两位华裔超级奥数明星
前天本虾的帖子讲到了今年国际奥数两项爆炸新闻之一就是代表加拿大拿下五金一铜、位列名人榜首的宋卓群(Alex Song)同学。这位刚在美国名牌私校PEA毕业、即将入读普林斯顿的数学奇才的确卓尔不群啊!其实他早已在耶鲁大学任教,完全可以从高中提前毕业。不过如果那样,个人五金的历史记录可能就不存在了。

本虾上次的帖子出来后,有人看了他的照片说:AUV,胡子该刮一刮了。看来全TM外貌协会的。如果刮掉胡子,看上去像林书豪那样秀气,是不是更让人XMJDH?今天我就不贴照片了。

我第一次在一个小群见到他妈妈时眼花,误以为她是另一个数学很好、名字非常近似的孩子的妈妈。后来有人提醒我这孩子八年级就拿了国际奥数金牌,吓得我一路跟头。本人现在体操水平大涨,盖源于此。不过你可能认为吓得还不够,不然本虾应该拿个体操奥运金牌才对。

欧美的教育体制是强调个性化和灵活性的,本虾以为正是这一点会造就出真正对数学(或其它领域)有天赋有热诚的一流人才。加之华裔文化中的勤奋努力和重视教育,自然会结出果实来。本虾所在城市有一男孩,从小喜欢到位于本市的斯坦福大学旁听课程,不但数学极佳,而且人文历史也有很高素养。他八年级时旁听大学数学和欧洲历史的课程,和那些大学生一起考试还名列前茅。本来应该升入Gunn高中,但最终居然跳过四年高中,直接上了加大柏克利,大学一年级结束又转学到斯坦福,跳过二年级直接上大三了。这孩子长得人高马大,倒也看不出比同学小五岁。前年我家女儿去柏克利参加BMT数学竞赛,回来说参赛的许多学生以前就是这孩子的同班同学,现在他居然是组织比赛的大学生之一了。有家长听我说起此孩,都没任何印象,因为大家经常看的比如数学USAMO榜单上,这孩子只在七八年级在榜上昙花一现,后来就上大学了,直接从大家关注的雷达上消失了,当然沒人知道!大牛隐于市,一骑绝尘啊!

别以为我讲了两个人,这卦就讲完了。没有!刚才是题外话,其实只讲了Alex。注意我的小标题是奥数明星,刚说的这男孩没参加国际奥数,不算。

现在夲虾隆重推出另一位双无人物(前无和后无)陶哲轩(Terence Tao)。

这陶哲轩可不得了。他在10岁、11岁、12岁代表澳大利亚参加国际数学奥赛,分获铜牌、银牌和金牌。奥数金牌的最年轻纪录至今由他保持,不知道以后会不会有人能超越。

陶哲轩从24岁起在加大洛杉矶分校担任教授,成为该校有史以来最年轻的正教授。2006年,31岁时获得数学界的诺贝尔奖“菲尔兹”奖(这么年轻获这奖的人凤毛麟角)。据报道,他是目前全世界智商最高的人。请看他的照片,多么年轻!外貌协会的该满意了吧?



本虾好友、目前在本市着力初高中数学培训的邹同,他的大儿子从MIT毕业后,现在正在UCLA读博,师从陶哲轩。这大儿子当年数学竞赛名列全美第二十五位,经常到美国一些数学夏令营(比如Awesome math)作培训官。前年圣诞假期,在我家里给一小群孩子讲数学,精彩绝伦!关于陶哲轩的传奇,当然也听来不少。

好了,别以为只有华裔牛,后面的卦我讲几个其它族裔的,免得给你错觉。

皮皮蝦:【国际奥数之天龙八卦(三)】
(三) Iurie的英雄泪
先上一张Iurie Boreico的照片亮瞎你们的眼吧!是不是帅呆了?女粉丝们,你们今天要睡不着觉了吧?

照片中Iurie披着他的祖国摩尔多瓦的国旗,笑容纯净清澈。这摩尔多瓦在哪?它是前苏联的加盟共和国,后来苏联解体就独立出来。其民族与罗马尼亚同宗(罗马尼亚称其为摩尔达维亚),曾一度有两国要合并的说法。在冷战时期,虽然罗马尼亚是苏联的卫星国,但罗马尼亚一直与苏联有领土争议,其区域正是摩尔多瓦西部与罗马尼亚毗邻的地区。

言归正传,Iurie以三金二银排在名人堂榜单上第七位(并列),但夲虾为什么略过前面的人专门讲他呢?因为他其实应该高居榜首,可以和宋卓群比肩的。他的那两银是意外改了成色的,真正和他实力相称的是五金!国际奥数五金王的记录其实应该提前到2007年诞生才对。

先看事实吧:从2003年至2007年,Iurie的奖牌记录是中间三年金牌,头尾两年银牌。在最后一年的银牌之前,他连续拿下了两年满分和一次特别奖(宋卓群也只是一次满分,也得到一次特别奖)。


有沒有看出来这track record有什么问题?就象大学招生官看一个学生的高中成绩单一样,他是要看trend(趋势)的。如果一个学生四年高中修AP的课数是0,3,5,2,你会有何印象?对了,他最后一年不够挑战自己或者表现有下滑倾向。你看宋卓群第一年作为雏凤拿了铜牌,接下来全是金灿灿的。那陶哲轩更是芝麻开花铜银金一路上升(若不是上了大学,他后面应该还是金得发黄)。其他多金王也是开低走高的节奏。那Iurie怎么了?

让我们仔细看他最后一年(2007年)每题的分数,你可以看到,他第二天三道题满分,第一天只是最简单的送分题第一题拿了五分,第二三题一分未得。这对于一个上两届全满分的王中王正常吗?所以,Iurie最后一年显然是出了问题的,而且是出在第一天(感觉自己成了福尔摩斯,推理能力强大啊!)

什么问题?他喝醉了!有传说在头天晚上,有些人把他灌醉了!哎呀,伤天害理呀!能够和他喝酒的人一定是关系较近的朋友,你们够哥们吗?

那第一年为什么断定应该是金?那一年他病得很厉害。你看他第一天和第二天都是前两题满分、最后一题得零分,完全是强弩之末呀!他每天能撑下那四个半小时就不错了。

或曰:汝何以知其病?答曰:吾女告之。又曰:汝女何以知之?曰:小女曾就教于彼,自彼而知(英文表达就是from the mouth of the horse)。别误解,小女不才,她只是和其他一些孩子一起上了个数学夏令营,她那个级别的班级正好由Iurie作讲课老师之一,所以可以听大英雄侃大山,好福利啊!还是女儿好啊,喜欢和老爸分享八卦。儿子也去了夏令营,沉默如金。此金非彼金啊!

所侃大山中还有一件有趣秩事: Iurie的第二个满分差一点没拿到,因为他不屑做简单的题,拿起卷子就直奔最后一道难题,耗去太多时间,以至最后有点来不及做那手到擒来的简单题目。好在艺高人胆大,他赶在大限前急速完成全部考题,有惊无险地拿下满分。这每题七分不分难易的评分规则不太合理啊!

Iurie丟了两金有沒有洒下英雄泪?夲虾不得而知。不过,安在他这个帅哥头上,也很唯美。古希腊悲剧之父埃斯库罗斯不是说了吗:"什么是悲剧?就是把美撕碎了给你看!"

TOP

皮皮蝦:【国际奥数之天龙八卦(四)】
创建时间: 2015-7-18 15:40
(四)奥数和本拉登

奥数和本拉登有什么关系?不会是标题党吧?有关系!本虾向XXX保证!

先看看这张一夜之间传遍中国的照片吧!



随这张照片还有这样的文字也在到处流传:刚刚结束的国际数学奥林匹克比赛,美国队竟然击败了常胜将军中国队取得冠军,在接见金牌选手的活动中,奥巴马以为走错房间给中国队颁奖呢,内心独白:我靠,这是美国队吗?!孩子们也琢磨:

TOP

皮皮蝦:【国际奥数之天龙八卦(四)】
创建时间: 2015-7-18 15:40
(四)奥数和本拉登

奥数和本拉登有什么关系?不会是标题党吧?有关系!本虾向XXX保证!

先看看这张一夜之间传遍中国的照片吧!



随这张照片还有这样的文字也在到处流传:刚刚结束的国际数学奥林匹克比赛,美国队竟然击败了常胜将军中国队取得冠军,在接见金牌选手的活动中,奥巴马以为走错房间给中国队颁奖呢,内心独白:我靠,这是美国队吗?!孩子们也琢磨:

TOP

随这张照片还有这样的文字也在到处流传:刚刚结束的国际数学奥林匹克比赛,美国队竟然击败了常胜将军中国队取得冠军,在接见金牌选手的活动中,奥巴马以为走错房间给中国队颁奖呢,内心独白:我靠,这是美国队吗?!孩子们也琢磨:

TOP

皮皮蝦:【国际奥数之天龙八卦(五)】
创建时间: 2015-7-18 19:40
(五)昨夜星光灿烂

幸福来得太突然!昨晚从泰国载誉归来的美国队主教练、领队Po-Shen Loh和代表加拿大的五金王宋卓群(Alex Song)来到湾区,为此一群牛妈牛爸临时办了一个party庆祝,一时星光灿烂,双眼晕眩。本虾终于一睹风采(Po-Shen 以前见过),握过的手不忍再洗了。

这是本虾分别与教练Po-shen及五金王Alex合的影,被一位星妈给搞成这样酷的一张明星照。本来本虾不想露真容,何况昨天头发又有点乱,但是如果不上片片,怎么堵住你们的嘴呢?会有人说我吹牛呢!



当时场面混乱,每人都要合影,难为了两位名人。最好笑的是,Alex的妈妈也凑热闹,要求和儿子合影,引得大家哄笑,戏称她也是粉丝。其实这巨星的妈妈在这次儿子夺金后也一直没机会合影呢,为尊重隐私,这里就不上片片了。

教练Po-shen被称作帅哥,简直逆生长,越长越年轻。好几次,刚到的人把他当成学生呢,其实他已是三个孩子的爸爸了。请看近影。


有位妈妈真有心有主意,搞来一件今年最火的NBA篮球冠军金州勇士队的T恤,作为硅谷父母们的礼物送给了Po-shen,上面用粗笔写了贺词。


还有位以前没见过的热心妈妈,居然拿来一本台湾岀的关于奥数的书给我作写作参考,真心感谢。据说这是去年另一位星妈在台湾为大家代购的,背了许多本到硅谷来。

本虾观察到这个聚会有个特别之处,就是互相的称呼都是XXX的爸爸、XXX的妈妈之类。原因很好理解,一来是因为孩子而走到一起来的,二来是因为牛娃更有名。其中居然发掘出浙大某宿舍出人才呀,这宿舍先后做过室友的三位妈妈的孩子都在江湖上有响当当的名号了(不能再具体八卦了啊)。这间宿舍应该拍卖出天价才对!开发商是不是应该把它做月子中心,以最大限度地利用起来。

牛妈牛爸们带来了丰盛的食物,最火爆的是巨星Alex的妈妈亲手做的金蛋,人人都要吃一个,沾沾灵气。有位妈妈违规吃了两个,号称其中一个是为了未来的孙子吃的。


Po-Shen正好坐在本虾对面,非常过瘾。本虾急忙问了许多问题。择要记录如下:

关于今年美国队种族分布,有人认为有AA之嫌。精英队12人中有7个华人,为何最后六个选手中四个种族都是25%,华人只有一个半?答曰:这完全是撒切尔夫人的讲话-无稽之谈(对不起,这不是原话。Po-shen虽然是美国长大的新加坡华人,中文水平还没这么高)。我们选拔队员时只可看到考试的ID,根本不知道是谁。

在这件事上,美国的确表现出一个大国的不凡气度,很象当年中国的盛唐。本虾从另一渠道得到的消息补充如下:每年美国选拔五十人左右进行为期三周的集训,这个免费的夏令营(MOSP)里可以有在美读书的加拿大籍的学生。这次加拿大队六个队员中有三个是美国的夏令营培养出来的,当然不占美国的名额。这三个人有二个半华人血统,他们是:大名鼎鼎热爱出身地加拿大的Alex(美国真有成人之美啊)、Kevin Sun和Alexander Whatley(半个华人)。今年香港队也有一个美国培养的,他差一点进了夏令营。

有趣的是,印度报纸大肆报道那一个半印度裔学生Shyam Narayanan和Yang Liu Patil。这个Yang Liu Patil也被中国大肆报道了一番。他被中印美三国广泛报道,算是几亿宠爱在一身啊!请看印度报纸的报道:



席间Po-shen得意忘形或者我们扒料成功,他居然讲了自己的婚恋故事,非常劲爆!大家纷纷建议以后夏令营时给这些数学nerd现身说法,教教追女孩子的经验。至少本虾知道且非常欣赏的一点是,他主办的这个夏令营并非刷题或做狭窄的钻研,而是有长远眼光、旨在培养一代高水平的大师,比如还给孩子们开哲学讲座。善哉!

正是这种不急功近利的模式,造就美国的顶尖人才不是只会做题的机器。Po-shen感觉,凡是题目出奇的难或者题目的路数很不常规,中国选手就发挥得不如美国孩子。美国孩子已经习惯了难度、习惯了不按牌理的题目了。

忘了介绍Po-shen的背景了。他现在是著名的卡内基梅隆大学教授,去年接任美国奥数国家队主教练,当年他代表美国曾拿下国际奥数银牌。他的弟弟Po-Ru Loh更厉害,在2000-2004年间为美国拿下二金一银。他的妹妹也是女中豪杰,不但数学好,在加州理工学院还辅修英文。后来拿了加大伯克利的电脑硕士,现在伯克利读统计学博士。看来兄妹三人是美国数学界的苏门三杰啊!

TOP

The Class of 2015 by the numbers
by ELIZABETH S. AURITT, LIBBY R. COLEMAN, NICHOLAS P. FANDOS, JACOB D. H. FELDMAN, NIKITA KANSRA, JARED T. LUCKY, and SAMUEL Y. WEINSTOCK
produced by NIKHIL L. BENESCH and ANGELA C. LI
After weathering two hurricanes, three different deans of the College, and the Boston Marathon bombing, the Class of 2015 will pack up and leave the College this week—though half the class will not be straying farther than the Northeast. The future prospects of graduating seniors branch starkly when the class is distinguished by field of study, gender, and race. Computer Science concentrators entering the workforce will earn substantially more than their peers in other fields, as will men compared to women, and students of East Asian descent compared to those in other racial groups.

In other spheres, seniors maintain a broad consensus. Though the class reported an A- average GPA, 72 percent said that grade inflation is not much of a problem or no problem at all. When it comes to politics, more than 60 percent hold a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton as a 2016 presidential candidate, far more than any of her potential contenders.

This composite picture of the Class of 2015 emerges from The Crimson’s annual survey of graduating seniors. This year, 760 people, almost half the class, responded to an emailed survey that was sent to every senior and was open from May 12 to May 20. Although not every respondent answered every question, they weighed in on an array of topics from post-graduate plans to collegiate sleep habits to sexual assault. The survey was anonymous and The Crimson did not adjust data for possible self-selection bias.

Compare to last year's The Class of 2014, By the Numbers.

POST.HARVARD
Once the Class of 2015 exits Johnston Gate, its members will go all over the country, and the world, to pursue a wide variety of jobs and other activities in the “real world.” A majority of the class will either stay in Massachusetts or go to New York or California after graduation. Fifteen percent of respondents said they were leaving the country.

The vast majority of seniors, 71 percent, said they will be joining the workforce after graduation. Another 15 percent will head straight to graduate school. Four percent will hit the road to travel. And 9 percent said they are not yet sure what they will do.

Of graduates entering the workforce, 48 percent said they are entering either consulting, finance, or technology/engineering. The survey found some major discrepancies between what seniors are doing immediately after graduation and what they want to be doing in 10 years. For instance, though 34 percent of respondents said they will work in consulting or finance after graduation—a figure consistent with recent years—only 5 percent want to be doing so in 10 years. On the other hand, while 5 percent of seniors are going into health-related fields after graduation, 20 percent want to be working in health a decade from now.

Starting salaries vary widely among members of the graduating class, with 41 percent of respondents saying they will make more than $70,000 and 8 percent saying they will make $110,000 or more right away. As in recent years, salary and field vary meaningfully by gender and race. Forty-nine percent of working men said they will make more than $70,000 after graduation, compared to only 34 percent of working women. While around the same proportions of working men and women are going into consulting and public service, 23 percent of working male respondents said they will work in finance, compared to only 14 percent of women. Of those who are working, 35 percent of white respondents, 33 percent of black respondents, and 32 percent of Hispanic or Latino respondents said they will make more than $70,000 after graduation, compared to 60 percent of respondents who said they were of East Asian descent.

Discrepancies between industry and starting salary also exist among students who participated in different activities during college. Forty-seven percent of respondents reporting that they would make $110,000 or more after graduation concentrated in Computer Science. Twenty-three percent of varsity athletes said they are going into consulting compared to only 13 percent of non-athletes. And 32 percent of people who said they were in a male final club during college said they were going into finance, while only 18 percent of seniors overall said that they are.

Twenty-one percent of respondents said that they or their family members are currently in debt due to college-related expenses. Thirty-eight percent of surveyed seniors said their family’s financial situation had affected their post-graduation plans somewhat or to a great extent, though the industries those respondents are entering roughly match those of the class at large.

51%
WILL STAY IN THE NORTHEAST
21%
SAY THAT THEY OR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE IN DEBT DUE TO COLLEGE-RELATED EXPENSES
47%
OF COMPUTER SCIENCE CONCENTRATORS WILL BE MAKING $110,000 OR MORE UPON GRADUATION
STARTING SALARY BY GENDER
<$30,000
$30,000-$49,999
$50,000-$69,999
$70,000-$89,999
$90,000-$109,999
$110,000+
Female
Male
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
STARTING SALARY BY RACE
Unpaid
<$30,000
$30,000-$49,999
$50,000-$69,999
$70,000-$89,999
$90,000-$109,999
$110,000+
White
Black
Hispanic
East Asian
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
FIELD NEXT YEAR VS. DESIRED FIELD IN TEN YEARS
10 Years From Now
Now
Academia/research
Consulting
Education
Finance
Health
Technology/engineering
Public service/nonp…
Publishing/media
Arts/sports/entertainment
Government/politics
Entrepreneurship
Other business
Other
Undecided
0%
10%
20%
30%
WORKING SENIORS GOING INTO CONSULTING OR FINANCE BY YEAR
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
A CRIMSON MOSAIC
Chosen from what administrators touted at the time as the most diverse applicant pool in the history of the College, the Class of 2015 pulls together an intricate mosaic of different backgrounds, worldviews, and identities. Yet survey data suggests that some segments of the class are more diverse than others, and that not every senior felt fully included in the College community.

An especially diverse picture emerges in the 14 percent of surveyed seniors who said they were first-generation college students. A majority of these students are nonwhite, and more than 20 percent are Hispanic or Latino. Sixty-seven percent reported a combined family income of less than $80,000 per year, compared to 27 percent of all surveyed seniors.

Most survey respondents overall, however, hail from families that earn significantly more than the average American household. Nearly half of all respondents reported a combined family income of $125,000 per year or more, while only about 15 percent of American households earn that much, according to the United States Census Bureau.

College-wide diversity appears to be reflected in personal friendships. When asked to think of their five closest friends at Harvard, 88 percent of respondents—and 84 percent of white respondents—said that at least one friend identifies with a different racial or ethnic background.

Though seniors mostly identified as politically liberal, religious views ranged more widely. Agnostics and atheists make up 42 percent of the class, outnumbering the 35 percent who identify as Protestant or Catholic. Only one in ten seniors identified as very religious, compared to about half of the class who said they are not religious at all.

In a class that witnessed an often explosive national debate about racial discrimination, 24 percent of seniors said that they have felt marginalized because of their race or ethnicity while at Harvard, including 74 percent of black students, 40 percent of Latino students, and 54 percent of East Asian students.

Other minority groups reported similar feelings due to class or sexual orientation. Despite the fact that 62 percent of seniors reported receiving financial aid from Harvard, 67 percent of students whose families make less than $80,000 per year said they’ve felt marginalized because of their socioeconomic status while at the College. Moreover, in a class where 15 percent of students identified as gay, bisexual, something else, or unsure, 47 percent of respondents who identify as gay or lesbian said they have felt marginalized because of their sexual orientation at some point since arriving on campus.

Still, more than 90 percent of students in each racial group—and 96 percent of students who identify as gay or lesbian—say they would choose Harvard again.

13%
IDENTIFY AS GAY, BISEXUAL, OR SOMETHING ELSE
34%
REPORTED THAT NONE OF THEIR FIVE CLOSEST FRIENDS HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT POLITICAL BELIEFS
LEGACY AND FIRST-GEN
First-generation
Legacy
Everyone else
White
Family income over $80k
Starting salary over $70k
Recruited athlete
0%
100%
25%
50%
75%
FAMILY INCOME DISTRIBUTION
Harvard
U.S.
< $40,000
$40,000-$79,999
$80,000-$124,999
$125,000-$249,999
$250,000+
0%
50%
25%
25%
50%
74%
OF BLACK STUDENTS FELT MARGINALIZED BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE WHILE AT HARVARD
67%
WHOSE FAMILIES MAKE LESS THAN $80,000/YEAR FELT MARGINALIZED BECAUSE OF THEIR SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS WHILE AT HARVARD
45%
WHO IDENTIFY AS GAY, LESBIAN, OR BISEXUAL FELT MARGINALIZED BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION WHILE AT HARVARD
MAKING THE GRADE
Grade inflation is a near-perennial topic of conversation at Harvard, and the Class of 2015’s years in Cambridge were no exception. Dean of Undergraduate Education Jay M. Harris caused a stir in December 2013 when he said the median grade at the College was an A- and, indeed, the Class of 2015 appears to have met that mark with an average self-reported GPA of 3.64. Over half the respondents reported a GPA of at least 3.67, the cutoff for an A- average.

Women reported a slightly higher GPA compared to men, 3.65 to 3.62, while Asian students reported the highest average GPA of any race or ethnicity at 3.7. By comparison, students who identified as white, black, and Hispanic or Latino reported average GPAs of 3.63, 3.53, and 3.55, respectively. Legacy students reported roughly the same average GPA as those whose parents are not Harvard alumni.

In spite of the high class averages, 72 percent of senior respondents said that grade inflation at Harvard is not much of a problem or no problem at all. Eighty-six percent of the class said academics were either very important or absolutely essential to them, and 80 percent reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their concentration.

Almost three years after the Government 1310 cheating scandal, 20 percent of graduating seniors said they had cheated in academics while at Harvard. Of those who reported cheating, 90 percent did so on a problem set or homework assignment, 27 percent on a paper or take-home exam, and 30 percent on an in-class exam.

Recruited athletes were about twice as likely to have said that they cheated as the rest of the class. The same is true for members of male final clubs. Seniors headed to work in the technology or engineering sectors reported cheating at a higher rate, 34 percent, than students going into any other field.

Most cheaters seem not to have been caught, though, as only 5 percent of graduating seniors reported having been before the Administrative Board for any type of disciplinary issue.

3.64
MEAN REPORTED GPA, JUST BELOW AN A-
72%
THINK GRADE INFLATION IS NOT MUCH OF A PROBLEM OR NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL AT HARVARD
GPA DISTRIBUTION

19.5%
HAVE CHEATED IN ACADEMICS AT HARVARD
90%
OF THOSE WHO CHEATED DID SO ON A PROBLEM SET OR HOMEWORK
5%
HAVE GONE BEFORE THE AD BOARD FOR DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS
OUT AND ABOUT
Outside of the classroom, members of the Class of 2015 devoted themselves to a variety of activities—not necessarily the sort that would show up on their LinkedIn profiles.

Fifty-eight percent of senior respondents said they entered Harvard as virgins. Once they arrived in Cambridge, reported sexual activity varied considerably. While 19 percent of male respondents reported having sexual intercourse with 10 or more partners while at Harvard, only 7 percent of women said the same. Twenty-four percent of the class, on the other hand, said they did not have sexual intercourse while at Harvard. Of those seniors having sex, 43 percent said they always use a condom, while 31 percent said they sometimes, rarely, or never use a condom.

Viewing pornography was significantly more popular among surveyed men, 45 percent of whom said they watched it multiple times a week while in college. By contrast, 56 percent of women said they have never watched porn in college.

Drinking was another common “extracurricular” activity, with about 60 percent of seniors reporting drinking at least once a week. A smaller number, 13 percent, said that they had been taken to University Health Services or another hospital for reasons relating to alcohol at least once during their time at Harvard.

Other substance use was less common among surveyed students. While 40 percent of seniors said they have smoked marijuana at least once, only 7 percent said they have tried cocaine or ecstasy, and 8 percent said the same for psychedelics.

When it came to kicking back, private dorm parties seem to have been the most important for Harvard seniors, with 79 percent of the class reporting the such parties were at least moderately important to their social lives at Harvard. Final clubs and other single-sex, off-campus social organizations—subjects of much debate on campus—proved to be not all that important, as the majority of respondents said the organizations were not at all important to their social lives in college.

Between studying and socializing, members of the Class of 2015 also found time to rest— sometimes. Slightly more than one-third of the class reported getting fewer than seven hours of sleep per night on average.

42%
HAD SEX BEFORE HARVARD
21%
FIRST HAD SEX DURING FRESHMAN YEAR
21%
WERE NEVER IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP DURING THEIR TIME AT HARVARD
1
MEDIAN NUMBER OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS GRADUATING SENIORS REPORTED HAVING HAD DURING THEIR TIME AT HARVARD
SOCIAL SPACES
Not important at all
Slightly important
Moderately important
Very important
Absolutely essential
House and college-sponsored events
Private dorm roomevents
Final clubs
Other single-sex off-campus socialorganizations
Bars and other publicvenues
Events organized byextracurricularactivities
0%
100%
25%
50%
75%
FREQUENCY OF SUBSTANCE USE
Alcohol
Marijuana
Never
Less than once a semester
Two or three times a semester
Once a month
Two or three times a month
Once a week
Twice a week
More than twice a week
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
35%
GOT FEWER THAN 7 HOURS OF SLEEP EACH NIGHT
POLITICS
This year’s graduating seniors tend to swing blue just like the state where the College resides. Sixty-two percent of graduating seniors reported that they are liberal or very liberal, while only 9 percent said they are conservative or very conservative. Beliefs shifted slightly to the left after four years of college. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said that at the start of college they were moderate, liberal, or very liberal, while 88 percent now identify with one of these three political categories. Female respondents were more likely than men to be liberal or very liberal. About half of male respondents said that they are liberal or very liberal, while 69 percent of surveyed women identified with the left end of the spectrum. Of those who called themselves conservative, 61 percent who will be working after graduation are going into finance or consulting.

That political skew is just as apparent when seniors were asked about the 2016 presidential election. Sixty-three percent of respondents—and 71 percent of female respondents—had a favorable opinion of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, while Jeb Bush, the highest-rated Republican in the field, is viewed favorably by just 12 percent of the Class of 2015.

Former Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts’ senior U.S. senator, has insisted she is not running for president, but she still commands largely favorable views from the Class of 2015. Fifty-three percent of respondents rated Warren favorably as a 2016 presidential candidate, while only 20 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion.

Among those who identify as conservative and very conservative, Florida governor Jeb Bush and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio are viewed most favorably. Nearly half of conservative and very conservative respondents have a favorable opinion of Bush as a 2016 presidential candidate, while 44 percent said they view Rubio favorably. Other than Bush, none of the Republican 2016 contenders received a favorable rating from more than ten percent of graduating seniors.

With blockades, occupations, and a student arrest, divestment from the fossil fuel industry has been a hot button issue on campus in recent years. Graduating seniors, it seems, are divided on whether the University ought to divest its endowment. Forty-one percent said Harvard should divest; 27 percent said Harvard should not; and 32 percent of respondents said they were undecided. That breakdown does not meaningfully differ from the Class of 2014.

Despite their disapproval of Harvard’s institutional investing, those who supported divestment donated to senior gift at nearly the same rate as the rest of their class. Eighty-four percent of divestment supporters characterized themselves as liberal or very liberal.

69%
OF WOMEN IDENTIFY AS LIBERAL OR VERY LIBERAL
51%
OF MEN IDENTIFY AS LIBERAL OR VERY LIBERAL
POLITICAL BELIEFS
Very liberal
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
Very conservative
Apolitical
Before coming toHarvard
Now
0%
100%
25%
50%
75%
LOOKING TO 2016
Favorable
Unfavorable
No Opinion
Not Enough Information
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren
Jeb Bush
Ted Cruz
Mike Huckabee
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
Scott Walker
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Jeb Bush● Unfavorable: 50.95
84%
OF SENIORS WHO SAID HARVARD SHOULD DIVEST FROM FOSSIL FUELS CHARACTERIZED THEMSELVES AS LIBERAL OR VERY LIBERAL
62%
OF PRO-DIVESTMENT SENIORS CONTRIBUTED TO SENIOR GIFT
DIVESTMENT FROM FOSSIL FUELS
Unsure
Should not divest
Should divest
Should not divest26.7%
MENTAL HEALTH / SEXUAL ASSAULT
With the College under investigation for its adherence to Title IX regulations and a new University-wide sexual misconduct policy the subject of fierce debate, sexual violence has been a major topic of conversation on campus during the past year.

Fourteen percent of women in the Class of 2015 said they were sexually assaulted at Harvard, while another 7 percent said they were unsure whether or not they had been a victim of sexual violence. By comparison, just 3 percent of men reported being sexually assaulted. Those numbers are roughly consistent with an oft-cited 2007 study, which found that 19 percent of women at large four-year universities experienced a completed or attempted sexual assault during their time in college.

Amidst prominent discussions about sexual assault, only 6 percent of those who said they were sexually assaulted or that they were unsure of whether they were sexually assaulted reported it, a figure consistent with national research.

On the other hand, 55 percent of Harvard seniors—two-thirds of women and 40 percent of men—said they know someone who was sexually assaulted at the College. Students who identify as gay or lesbian, bisexual, something else, or unsure were nearly twice as likely to say that they had been sexually assaulted or were unsure of whether they were sexually assaulted than their heterosexual counterparts.

When asked about their mental health, survey respondents conveyed mixed experiences with the institutions they consulted for treatment. Twenty percent of seniors said they sought treatment for depression and 16 percent for anxiety during their time at Harvard. By comparison, 3 percent said they have sought treatment for an eating disorder and 5 percent for ADHD.

A plurality of students who indicated that they sought mental health treatment, 33 percent, turned to UHS. Meanwhile 19 percent, 11 percent, and 7 percent turned to the Bureau of Study Counsel, an off-campus professional, or a peer counseling group, respectively.

Consistent with previous years, seniors who sought mental health services off campus were nearly twice as likely to report being satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment they received compared to those who went to UHS.

14.4%
OF WOMEN SAID THEY HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED
6.5%
OF WOMEN SAID THEY WERE UNSURE OF WHETHER THEY WERE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED
2.95%
OF MEN SAID THEY HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED
SATISFACTION WITH HELP RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
Very Satisifed
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
UHS
BSC
Off-campus professional
Peer counseling group
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
% WHO SOUGHT TREATMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS
Depression
Bipolar disorder
Eating disorder
Anxiety
PTSD
ADHD
Substance abuse
Other reasons
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
REFLECTING ON HARVARD
Hot-button issues such as sexual assault policies, fossil fuel divestment, and academic integrity dominated campus discussions during the Class of 2015’s four years at Harvard. Survey respondents expressed mixed feelings about Harvard’s administration and its programming, old and new.

With 36 percent of surveyed seniors approving of her work, University President Drew G. Faust experienced a drop in favorability of about 12 percentage points from last year. About 40 percent of those surveyed said they had no opinion or insufficient information about Faust.

Meanwhile, four out of five graduating seniors said they have a favorable opinion of first-year Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana. The third person to occupy the deanship in four years, Khurana had a rating that was just slightly below the Class of 2014’s 87 percent approval of interim College Dean Donald H. Pfister, but nearly six times seniors’ 2014 rating of former College Dean Evelynn M. Hammonds.

Surveyed seniors were ambivalent about many University programs. The ongoing House Renewal project was viewed favorably by 54 percent of surveyed seniors, marking a slight decline from the Class of 2014’s approval rating of 59 percent. A higher percentage of seniors in Quincy and Leverett, the two Houses renewed thus far, said they viewed the endeavour favorably, with approval ratings of 60 percent and 75 percent, respectively.

Following a flurry of discussion and activism around sexual violence on campus in the last year, one in three seniors said they did not have enough information to evaluate the University’s recently unveiled sexual misconduct policy. The new policy was viewed favorably by 22 percent of all surveyed seniors and unfavorably by the same percentage.

The Undergraduate Council received mixed reviews, with 37 percent of surveyed seniors viewing the body favorably and 29 percent viewing it unfavorably. And while 41 percent of surveyed seniors said they support fossil fuel divestment, the pro-divestment student activist group Divest Harvard was viewed favorably by 33 percent of survey respondents and unfavorably by the same percentage.

There was one topic on which nearly all graduating seniors agreed: 95 percent said that, if given the chance, they would choose to attend Harvard

HARVARD APPROVAL RATINGS
Favorable
Unfavorable
No Opinion
Not Enough Information
House Renewal
Gen Ed
New SexualMisconductPolicy
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Favorable
Unfavorable
No Opinion
Not Enough Information
Faust
Khurana
Ad Board
UC
Divest Harvard
The Crimson
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
83%
WERE SATISFIED OR VERY SATISFIED WITH THEIR UNDERGRADUATE HOUSE
95%
WOULD CHOOSE HARVARD AGAIN

TOP

以上格式乱掉了

Look those numbers as you like:
http://features.thecrimson.com/2015/senior-survey/

非常有意思的一些数据

TOP

半数左右毕业生的调查数据,如果真实性比较高(被调查者没开玩笑)的话,不少数据还是蛮超出我想象的。

推荐读一下这篇调查文章,信息量大

TOP

申请美国名校的命门(下) (2015-08-10 12:36:38) 下一个
http://blog.wenxuecity.com/myblog/69325/201508/9635.html

这是“中国教育的死穴和申请美国名校的命门”的下篇。这篇文章的上篇,我自己知道,粗看之下会显得迂腐。但自己的习惯,做事讲求程序实证,只能一步一步推进。更何况大道至简,有些陈词滥调,反倒是前人智慧的结晶。

中国人移民到美国,不少人发现了一个现象:那些出国前就在国内单位混得好的,到了美国往往也事业顺利。相反,那些心高气傲智商更高的人,到了美国,虽然做个民工没问题,但有的职业发展却常常受挫。老的说法将这归因于为人,性格决定命运;时尚的解释叫情商。为人也好,情商也好,其实后面都是同一个核心的东西:即感知并尊重别人利益的能力,其它的很多东西,都是虚的玄的。我们常说要尊重别人,但到底什么是尊重?叫别人一声叔叔阿姨,当然有礼貌,但这只是表面上的尊重;真正的尊重,是能够感受并正确对待别人的利益。叫老干妈一声阿婆,却指望她给个1亿元的红包,那不叫尊重,那叫算计,那叫侮辱她的智商。

有人的地方,就有利益。但在教育上,中国家长和学校往往只鼓励孩子“我要什么”,却不引导孩子正视“别人也要什么”。有的对别人正当的利益诉求,往往持攀比心理、竞争意识、敌对态度,即“见不得别人好”;将由各种人通过利益联结在一起的社会,更简单地视作险恶污浊。结果是,不少人心理阴暗,看事情总是戴着负面的有色眼镜,缺乏正能量。

其实,中国教育之始,并不否认别人的利益。孔子先生办学,收费纳徒,有教无类,有卖文凭之嫌,无自命清高之举;他拉着一帮学生,找工作,递简历,风尘仆仆,以社会为学堂,怎敢藐视社会、藐视别人的利益?他说“己所不欲,勿施于人”,实质就是换位思考、尊重别人的利益。

美国的教育,从家庭到学校,对孩子感受并尊重别人利益的能力,非常重视,而这就是人品的基础,也是评价一个孩子时,说他 “nice(好)”和“fair(公平)”的实质内涵。5年前,我曾经和大波士顿地区的一所著名私立高中的招生办主任有过一次讨论。她的两个孩子都在哈佛学院就读。她说话时声音柔和,略微沙哑,特有磁性,和她接触过的人都不会忘记她的声音,相信有的读者已经知道我说的是谁,但她不再担任该职位,没有征求过她和学校的同意,我不便指明她和学校的名字。Anyway,就这么一位优雅知性的美女,当谈到录取学生时的人品考量时,她斩钉截铁地说:“越是聪明的学生,如果人不nice,越不能给他机会。”

承认个人的利益,是社会发展的动力;尊重别人的利益,是社会稳定的基础。这点,美国教育,通过社会、学校和家长的互动,在引导学生建立积极正面、客观务实的健康人格和向社会过渡方面,做得很到位,有时也很机巧微妙。美国长大的孩子,普遍能够正面看待别人的利益、心态阳光。在这方面,美国顶尖名校,通过招生标准这个“高考指挥棒”,强化了一些社会预期和价值观。名校的招生标准,外行咋看之下,似乎众说纷纭、莫衷一是,但其实后面有一个共同的实质性期待,就是学生及其家庭“懂事”、能感知并尊重别人的利益;他们的招生标准,既尊重社会现实,也有自身利益的考量。

美国的顶尖大学,几乎全是私立的。每所学校,实质上都是一家非营利公司,都要自己养活自己。不少名校,历史上都有过风雨飘零的岁月。有一次,我经过耶鲁大学,专程绕道凭吊耶鲁在康州小镇Clinton的原址。站在简朴的老屋前,我想象着当年耶鲁创办人之一的第一任校长Abraham Pierson牧师在自己住所的地下室和院子里,教着耶鲁的最早几位学生。耶鲁1701年创办时,只有1位学生。6年后,Abraham Pierson去世,接下去的几年,耶鲁的生存一直是个问题。后来多亏了迁址和一位名叫耶鲁的商人的捐赠,奠定了学校后来发展的基础,而这就是耶鲁大学名称的由来。我不知道,有多少和早期耶鲁类似的学校,消失在历史的烟尘里。 关于耶鲁大学原址和早期历史,我发过一组照片,没有读过的朋友可以点击这里进入。

活过来壮大的那些名校,即使今天,面对社会的预期和同行的竞争,它们也不敢丝毫懈怠。一个私校的校长,就是学校这个非营利公司的CEO,这一点,在有的顶尖大学的学校章程和官方网站上,白纸黑字,写得清清楚楚;花点时间,把几个关键词输入,上网搜一下就能查到。与一些人的理解不一样,私校校长花时间最多的工作不是教学和科研,甚至不是管理——这些都有人分管负责;美国私校校长最重要的工作是:搞钱!有了钱,就可以新盖一幢大楼,就可以多挖一个大牌教授,就可以增设一个奖学金. . .

为了钱,大多数顶尖名校都会降低一点标准,录取几个捐赠大户的子女,在圈内,这叫“development cases”,即“发展案例”,和学校的发展有关。虽然这类捐赠往往数额很大,但不固定不可靠,而且容易引发舆论争议,名校更倾向于依赖广大校友细水长流的奉献。对那些长期向母校捐赠一定数额以上捐款或积极出力的忠诚校友,学校会优先录取他们的子女,在圈内,这叫“legacies”,这个词,我喜欢把它翻译成“传承”。
根据一些资料,在一些顶尖大学,家庭有背景的子女,加上优先照顾的少数族裔学生和体育特长生,占一届新生的40%。

那名校又是如何选出其余的60%?或者说,更相关的问法是,为什么两个看起来成绩同样优秀、课外活动同样丰富、得奖记录同样灿烂的学生,名校录了这个但却拒了那个?最后临门一脚到底是什么?

最顶尖大学,以培养未来各行各业的社会栋梁为目标,它们是以社会的标准筛选学生的:学生不仅成绩要好,有激情有特长,还要具备能在社会上成功的心理素质和人格魅力;在一个成熟稳定的社会,年轻人要出头,人品是不能差的,要懂得顾忌别人的利益。 很难想象,一个老板,会用一个绝顶聪明、眼珠滴溜溜贼转、到人家公司面试时就想象着如何把人家公司的所有配方工艺流程和数据库破解盗窃了、然后跳出去自己创业办一个公司的雄心大志的人。

顶尖大学尊重社会的预期,筛选和培养学生,但如果这个社会预期和学校自身的利益相悖,也是无法实施的。事实上,它们筛选学生的标准和自身的利益是一致的。顶尖大学很清楚它们资源的价值、它们文凭的含金量,对低收入家庭子弟,哈佛等几所大学学费全免。顶尖名校录取一位平民子弟,无疑于送给这个家庭一笔很大的有形和无形的财富,但它们希望这是一笔投资:它们希望小孩以后在社会上成功,有能力回报母校;它们希望小孩有感恩体恤之心,愿意回报母校;至少,学校需要有人站台或打酱油时,孩子能主动跳出来。

你的孩子会打酱油吗?
话说到这份上,就明白了,为什么在所谓的资本主义的美国,名校录取学生时,对学生的人品看得这么重;也就不奇怪了,申请名校,还要附加作文、推荐信、面试、现在还要查Facebook等社交留言记录,涉及方方面面很多人、环环相扣;有时这个过程之微妙,只有圈内人才能意会。最顶尖名校的招生官从这些东西里面,飞速解读和预测一个个申请学生的各个方面,包括性情人品。对那些成绩特好,自我感觉也特好,别人好像都欠他的学生,对不起,格杀勿论;最顶尖名校最喜欢炫耀的,就是屠宰(slaughter)了多少SAT考满分者。

说到这里,不禁想到最近国内高考招生、北大清华抢状元的闹剧。如果国家不再养北大清华,你看它们还会不会再抢高考状元?

不光顶尖名校,美国其它的学校,无论公私,无一例外,只要抓住了生存和自身利益这个命门,搞清了谁给它们开支票这个问题,它们招生过程中貌似不同的做法,就一目了然了。不同私立学校都有自己的市场定位和招生对象,有的是学校挑学生,有的是学生挑学校,前者的招生办更像是采购部门,而后者的招生办更像销售部门,当然,更多学校的招生办,同时具备推销自己的教育产品和筛选学生这个原材料的功能。美国同一级别学校之间的竞争是非常激烈的,很多招生办的运作是非常商业化的。不少人知道,藤校级别外有些著名大学,最早是靠大量招收中东石油富豪子弟获得飞速发展的,直到近几年,它们才瞄准了中国学生。即使州立大学,它们也有预算问题和生存压力,直接影响了它们的招生政策。

美国顶尖名校在招生过程中,主动符合社会预期,甚至不惜变通迎合一些特殊家庭的做法,在一些人眼里,或许会被视作掉价,甚至“险恶污浊” 。发展案列的确看起来有违社会公平,但是,1)这不是谁有钱想买就买得到的,其名额是严格控制的,涉及学生的素质也有要求的,否则学校搞烂了,以后就不值钱了;2)要价是极高的,不同家庭没有定价的,进一个这样的学生涉及的赠额, 往往可以负担十几甚至上百个平民子弟,这为学校的发展提供了财力,也使得学校拿得出钱做一些非常理念的事;3)愿意拿出钱的家庭,还真的是希望孩子上进的家庭。孩子在顶尖名校的环境及压力下接受熏陶,不管是镀金还是附庸风雅,总比做“土豪”“富二代”好。因此,从社会效果角度,发展案列或许利远大于弊。总之,美国私立名校可不敢自命不凡,它们是靠社会养活的;正因为他们尊重了社会现实,符合了社会预期,正视了自己利益,采取了务实做法,在公私之间找到了平衡、实现了双赢,它们才充满活力,不断发展壮大,反过来影响社会,促进社会理念,并通过它们的招生标准,引导学生积极客观地对待别人、认识社会,塑造健康向上的人格,维系了社会正能量,成为社会稳定和家族传承的积极因素。回到上篇提出的问题,在教育孩子认识社会时,是该“堵”还是“疏”,美国教育的做法无疑值得深思。
从系统的角度看,如果把学校作为一个系统,把社会作为一个环境,如果系统敌视环境,只想对环境进行掠夺控制,怎么可能指望系统和环境可持续共存?相反,如果系统和环境相互珍惜配合,就会进化成为一个新的稳定系统,原来的系统和环境,就会唇齿相依,融为一体。

关于美国名校自身利益和社会价值的互动,这是一个很大的题目,超出了这篇文章的范围,无法再多讨论,这里只强调两点:1)美国顶尖名校确实承担了社会理念,对它们,任何讲理的人,都会肃然起敬;2)即使美国顶尖学校,它们也要吃饭拉屎放屁,它们也有自己的利益。当然,如果有人跑到美国顶尖大学招生办,向他们打探或求证拉屎放屁,那就不要怪人家王顾左右而言他、讳莫如深了;如果措辞不当,把人家呛得半天缓不过气来,也有可能;如果碰到对方干脆利落,脸一沉,那就吃不着兜着走了。

TOP

回复 169楼pp_dream 的帖子

【转】此博客文章的一个评论

Wish of reward or return maybe is one of the incentives for Harvard to discriminate against Asian applicants. But it certainly cannot be a major one.

Simply because, how can they know the African or Latino graduates are able or willing to pay more donation in return than their Asian counterparts? In fact, many African or Latino students admitted to Ivy League colleges are suspended in the first year due to their too poor academic performances.

Therefore, I believe "political correctness" plays a much bigger role in Harvard's discriminatory admission policy.

TOP

Political Right 已经蔓延米国各角落,以至于Donald Trump这次跳出来都会有那么强的支持率,呵呵。

怎么看Political Right这个问题???

TOP

 169 1234
发新话题