$24 billion NYC public schools only accepted 7 black students (of 895) to top magnet high schoool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

Many of the Chinese kids I knew at Stuy were straight up poor by NYC standards. Their parents worked very menial jobs in Chinatown and Flushing. Some worked to help support their families, and many took on tons of responsibility at an early age because their parents knew no English.

My neighbor is Chinese, she was a doctor in China. She qualifies for the MPDU in MoCo because the US does not recognize her degree and she does not work as a doctor.

For every one of those examples, there are more examples of under educated Asian immigrants working low level jobs whose kids do well in school.

Many Asian immigrants see education as a means to get out of poverty for their children (and the rest of the family), so they are heavily invested in their children's education. That's all it is. That's all it comes down to.

If the kids getting into Stuy are from gang ridden neighborhoods with lead paint in the walls and parents with mental illness we need to clone them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

Many of the Chinese kids I knew at Stuy were straight up poor by NYC standards. Their parents worked very menial jobs in Chinatown and Flushing. Some worked to help support their families, and many took on tons of responsibility at an early age because their parents knew no English.

My neighbor is Chinese, she was a doctor in China. She qualifies for the MPDU in MoCo because the US does not recognize her degree and she does not work as a doctor.

For every one of those examples, there are more examples of under educated Asian immigrants working low level jobs whose kids do well in school.

Many Asian immigrants see education as a means to get out of poverty for their children (and the rest of the family), so they are heavily invested in their children's education. That's all it is. That's all it comes down to.

Yep. Most of them were not doctors in China who now live in Montgomery County. Instead, they were peasants in China with less than a high school education and they now live in a tiny 1BR flat in Queens or Chinatown and do menial labor and don't speak English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the question: why are there so few schools that are on the level of Styvesant et al when there are clearly thousands of smart kids who may not make this cut, but are still very talented. Seems nuts to me.

YES!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be curious to see the number of each racial group that applied... or are students selected from the entire NYC public school pool without needing to opt in?

Couldn't find this year's info, but the data from last year is here, and I'm sure it's quite similar:
https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2018/03/07/few-black-and-hispanic-students-receive-admissions-offers-to-new-york-citys-top-high-schools-again/

Here are the percentage of test-takers who were admitted to Stuyvesant:

Native American 2.69%
Asian 6.96%
Black 0.17%
Latino 0.42%
White 2.94%
Multiracial 8.58%
Unknown 4.29%

I haven't looked at the link, but without knowing how each group did on the test, these percentages are meaningless.

That table DOES show how each group did on the test: 6.96% of Asian test takers had a score high enough to qualify for Stuyvesant. 2.94% of white test takers did. Etc. The link shows the total numbers of test takers and the number accepted into a bunch different schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

Many of the Chinese kids I knew at Stuy were straight up poor by NYC standards. Their parents worked very menial jobs in Chinatown and Flushing. Some worked to help support their families, and many took on tons of responsibility at an early age because their parents knew no English.

My neighbor is Chinese, she was a doctor in China. She qualifies for the MPDU in MoCo because the US does not recognize her degree and she does not work as a doctor.

For every one of those examples, there are more examples of under educated Asian immigrants working low level jobs whose kids do well in school.

Many Asian immigrants see education as a means to get out of poverty for their children (and the rest of the family), so they are heavily invested in their children's education. That's all it is. That's all it comes down to.

If the kids getting into Stuy are from gang ridden neighborhoods with lead paint in the walls and parents with mental illness we need to clone them.

I know a sibling pair who attended Stuy.

Poor Chinese immigrants raised by a single dad with no education who did menial labor jobs in Chinatown. For a while, he drove a truck making deliveries in Chinatown.

The mother died when the kids were young. When the mom was sick, the kids would have to translate for the doctors and nurses because the parents didn't speak a word of English.

The kids both got scholarships to college and worked full time in college and are now a doctor and an investment banker.

Stories like this are shockingly common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

So all of those poor and MC kids had the same upbringing? Same home environment? Same school environment - are they are the same schools?

This doesn't break down the SES by race so we don't know how the scores map to race AND SES.

I believe that 90 percent of the FARMS students at Stuy are Asians.

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

Maybe because the # of white students have a higher % of offers for all of the magnet schools? 26.5% offers but 18.1% of test takers.

As a Science alum from the 1980s, the figures in this table appall me. There were a lot more than 25 black kids in my class and no where near the number of Asians indicated.

FWIW, I've known plenty of people who were very smart, worked hard and did well in school but were relatively lousy test takers. It's a skill in and of itself.

These numbers really scream it's time to reevaluate how we do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

Maybe because the # of white students have a higher % of offers for all of the magnet schools? 26.5% offers but 18.1% of test takers.

As a Science alum from the 1980s, the figures in this table appall me. There were a lot more than 25 black kids in my class and no where near the number of Asians indicated.

FWIW, I've known plenty of people who were very smart, worked hard and did well in school but were relatively lousy test takers. It's a skill in and of itself.

These numbers really scream it's time to reevaluate how we do this.

Looking at admissions, saying “hmmm there are too many Asians” and then changing the system so that we get fewer Asians is the definition of institutional racism. Can’t wait until affirmative action is struck down and we can stop this diversity BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

Maybe because the # of white students have a higher % of offers for all of the magnet schools? 26.5% offers but 18.1% of test takers.

As a Science alum from the 1980s, the figures in this table appall me. There were a lot more than 25 black kids in my class and no where near the number of Asians indicated.

FWIW, I've known plenty of people who were very smart, worked hard and did well in school but were relatively lousy test takers. It's a skill in and of itself.

These numbers really scream it's time to reevaluate how we do this.

Agree completely. What is happening with the groups that aren’t represented in offers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

So all of those poor and MC kids had the same upbringing? Same home environment? Same school environment - are they are the same schools?

This doesn't break down the SES by race so we don't know how the scores map to race AND SES.

I believe that 90 percent of the FARMS students at Stuy are Asians.

Source?

This is borne out at Stuyvesant. While 75% of current students are Asian-Americans, they also, according to Department of Education statistics, constitute over 90% of students qualifying for free or subsidized lunch, the measure of poverty used in educational circles.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/stuyvesant-serves-needy-minorities-article-1.3944199

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

So all of those poor and MC kids had the same upbringing? Same home environment? Same school environment - are they are the same schools?

This doesn't break down the SES by race so we don't know how the scores map to race AND SES.

I believe that 90 percent of the FARMS students at Stuy are Asians.

Source?

This is borne out at Stuyvesant. While 75% of current students are Asian-Americans, they also, according to Department of Education statistics, constitute over 90% of students qualifying for free or subsidized lunch, the measure of poverty used in educational circles.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/stuyvesant-serves-needy-minorities-article-1.3944199

I wonder what the SES/race breakdown looks like for the test takers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

So all of those poor and MC kids had the same upbringing? Same home environment? Same school environment - are they are the same schools?

This doesn't break down the SES by race so we don't know how the scores map to race AND SES.

I believe that 90 percent of the FARMS students at Stuy are Asians.

Source?

This is borne out at Stuyvesant. While 75% of current students are Asian-Americans, they also, according to Department of Education statistics, constitute over 90% of students qualifying for free or subsidized lunch, the measure of poverty used in educational circles.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/stuyvesant-serves-needy-minorities-article-1.3944199

From the article...

The Mayor's Office of Operations' annual report on poverty in the city, released this month, noted that 24.1% of Asian-American New Yorkers lived in poverty in 2016, the latest year for available statistics, compared to 23.9% for Hispanics, 19.2% for blacks and 13.4% for whites.

This is borne out at Stuyvesant. While 75% of current students are Asian-Americans, they also, according to Department of Education statistics, constitute over 90% of students qualifying for free or subsidized lunch, the measure of poverty used in educational circles.

Read the article.. Like I said, Asian immigrants view education as a means to get out of poverty, so they invest heavily in it. That's really all it is. It's not because they are smarter or better. They just work harder at it and really invest in their children's education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

So all of those poor and MC kids had the same upbringing? Same home environment? Same school environment - are they are the same schools?

This doesn't break down the SES by race so we don't know how the scores map to race AND SES.

I believe that 90 percent of the FARMS students at Stuy are Asians.

Source?

This is borne out at Stuyvesant. While 75% of current students are Asian-Americans, they also, according to Department of Education statistics, constitute over 90% of students qualifying for free or subsidized lunch, the measure of poverty used in educational circles.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/stuyvesant-serves-needy-minorities-article-1.3944199

Uh oh we need to destroy these schools fast, before folks notice how much BS Dems say about education and poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

I'd guess that the home lives of most poor black/Latino kids are pretty different from those of poor kids with Asian immigrant parents. For example, I'd imagine that the level of trauma exposure would be a lot higher in the former.

and why is that, shouldn't we be addressing that instead of saying everything is racist?

The definition of institutional racism is to create an institution that has barriers for 1 race and not others.

?

Do you not understand what institutional racism is? Go read up on it. Very relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“This is actually tricky -
Admission to Stuyvesant is determined by a single test avail to all middle school students in NYC.There are no soft criteria-no interviews,no legacy favoritism, no strings to be pulled. It’s all abt test score which determines if you can handle academics.”

- Stephanie Ruhle, MSNBC

Maggie Haberman, NYT, quoted Ruhle to say:
“White students generally have more means with which to prep for this test, some doing it for years. Yes it’s a test, no it is not an equal playing field.”

I’m not sure why Maggie used white when Asians are the ones dominating this system.

The simple truth is that Asian relative overperformance demonstrates that “discrimination” is not a significant driver of outcomes on this sort of test. It has always been a very inconvenient truth for those who insist all groups are equally talented, generally ignored because of that inconvenience, and because Asians didn’t seem to want to make a big issue out of it. Now there is a critical mass of Asians who are going to resist getting shafted in the name of diversity. Will be interesting to see how that all works out.

You think it's a level playing field? So it's just pure talent that is being compared by these tests?

um yeah. There are poor and middle class asian kids who are getting in. That throws out race and SES as an excuse

Many of the Chinese kids I knew at Stuy were straight up poor by NYC standards. Their parents worked very menial jobs in Chinatown and Flushing. Some worked to help support their families, and many took on tons of responsibility at an early age because their parents knew no English.

My neighbor is Chinese, she was a doctor in China. She qualifies for the MPDU in MoCo because the US does not recognize her degree and she does not work as a doctor.

For every one of those examples, there are more examples of under educated Asian immigrants working low level jobs whose kids do well in school.

Many Asian immigrants see education as a means to get out of poverty for their children (and the rest of the family), so they are heavily invested in their children's education. That's all it is. That's all it comes down to.

If the kids getting into Stuy are from gang ridden neighborhoods with lead paint in the walls and parents with mental illness we need to clone them.

Do you think the 45% low income students, 90% of them who are Asians live in luxury? Or do you perhaps think they also live in old buildings with lead paint on the walls? Also, mental illness is a serious issue in the Asian community. It's just never talked about, and certainly people never seek help for it.

As for gangs, have you never heard of Chinese gangs in NYC?

http://gangstersinc.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-deadly-battle-for-control-over-new-york-s-chinatown

When do the excuses stop? Asian immigrants have gone through racism, desperation, gang violence and extreme poverty just as other groups have.

I am Asian American. I went to a gang infested school and grew up low income. My parents didn't speak English. Like many others, we -- the children - had to translate everything for them.. from school forms to doctors' visits.