As I was scanning the "Top Stories" of Yahoo News just now, this article caught my eye.
The article, in short, is about the rising importance of the Asian-American vote. What I found more interestingly is the comment about the collectivist nature of Asian societies, how Asians in general simply aren't used to expressing interest and exerting power in politics.
I feel like this comment deserves a closer analysis. More specifically, shouldn't we consider two separate demographics of Asian-Americans: those who immigrated as adults, and those who were born and/or raised here? It's an interesting question of how values are transferred (whether mostly through families or the environment), and it also carries implications about what politicians should focus on, if they choose to go after the "Asian" vote.
-Allen
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Why The Esteemed Tradition of "Community Conversations" Serves Not Its True Purpose
The Harvard Crimson on the Class of 2012 admissions: "Most importantly, according to the Admissions Office, this class of acceptances is likely to be more socioeconomically and geographically diverse than previous classes—which was the intended effect of eliminating Early Action. For instance, a record 11 percent of students are of African American descent, while 9.7 percent are Latino, 1.3 percent are Native American, and 18.5 percent are Asian-American."
All freshmen are required to read a selection called Community Conversations and to engage in facilitated discussion of these readings within their entryways. This year's selections were based on class and race. But they were entirely one-sided with respect not to economics but to ethnicities.
Harvard's admissions processes, like many others, attempt to bring diversity to the campus, and yet, in these readings, we could only hear about the African American experience, 11 percent of the Class of 2012. They were incredibly enlightening readings, but they highlighted only one common experience.
What happened to the stories of our Native American friends? Where was the Latino and Hispanic experience represented? And, with a whopping 18.5% composition, where were the voices of our Asian American brothers and sisters?
Let me be clear: I think it's of utmost importance to read about the African American experience, but America is not a two way street of black and white, rich and poor, liberal and conservative. Instead, it is the American fabric with rich, woven stories and cultures intertwined inextricably within the very fibers of the warp and weft that constitute this great tapestry we know as the land of the free and the home of the brave.
But to be truly free, we must hear all voices and perspectives and stories. The Community Conversations blatantly disregard the Latino and Hispanic experience, the Native American experience, the Asian American experience, and so many other experiences untold and unknown, even when these minorities comprise such a significant percentage of the Class of 2012's composition.
We must petition the Freshman Dean's Office to re-evaluate its Community Conversation selections and to include more diverse contributors and literature. None of the students who are on the committee for Community Conversations are of Asian, Hispanic/Latino, or Native American descent.
I argue not that we no longer wish to continue learning about the African American experience and that other experiences must take forward precedence, but rather that the African American experience so deeply ingrained in the American experience would in fact be better understood and augmented in the context of other voices and cultures. Accounts of all kinds of socioeconomic and ethnic conditions must be implemented in these readings required of 1666 freshman of the Class of 2012 and all future classes. Then and only then can we consider ourselves the threads of a timeless quilt.
-Matthew
All freshmen are required to read a selection called Community Conversations and to engage in facilitated discussion of these readings within their entryways. This year's selections were based on class and race. But they were entirely one-sided with respect not to economics but to ethnicities.
Harvard's admissions processes, like many others, attempt to bring diversity to the campus, and yet, in these readings, we could only hear about the African American experience, 11 percent of the Class of 2012. They were incredibly enlightening readings, but they highlighted only one common experience.
What happened to the stories of our Native American friends? Where was the Latino and Hispanic experience represented? And, with a whopping 18.5% composition, where were the voices of our Asian American brothers and sisters?
Let me be clear: I think it's of utmost importance to read about the African American experience, but America is not a two way street of black and white, rich and poor, liberal and conservative. Instead, it is the American fabric with rich, woven stories and cultures intertwined inextricably within the very fibers of the warp and weft that constitute this great tapestry we know as the land of the free and the home of the brave.
But to be truly free, we must hear all voices and perspectives and stories. The Community Conversations blatantly disregard the Latino and Hispanic experience, the Native American experience, the Asian American experience, and so many other experiences untold and unknown, even when these minorities comprise such a significant percentage of the Class of 2012's composition.
We must petition the Freshman Dean's Office to re-evaluate its Community Conversation selections and to include more diverse contributors and literature. None of the students who are on the committee for Community Conversations are of Asian, Hispanic/Latino, or Native American descent.
I argue not that we no longer wish to continue learning about the African American experience and that other experiences must take forward precedence, but rather that the African American experience so deeply ingrained in the American experience would in fact be better understood and augmented in the context of other voices and cultures. Accounts of all kinds of socioeconomic and ethnic conditions must be implemented in these readings required of 1666 freshman of the Class of 2012 and all future classes. Then and only then can we consider ourselves the threads of a timeless quilt.
-Matthew
Fat China
All signs point to a China that will see more dieting fads, nutritional analyses, over-processed foods, and rising rates of unhealthy consumption. Like any other people in the world, the Chinese like their fats and oils and sugars, they like the convenience and taste of fast food, and they organize their family and social lives around a hearty meal. The main differentiating factor between China and the West, however, is its sole attention on academic and financial success (often inversely related to the amount of time spent being physically active). This Shenzhen Undercover blog post cites some interesting statistics on China's health, suggesting a convergence with the American diet. I, for one, would not like to see Chinese (or any population of the world) deal with the social, psychological, and health-related consequences of obesity. When coupled with the increasing exposure to the glitz and glam of fashion/celebrity/model world, I cringe at the imminent reality.
The even more dreadful part of the story is that this is a trend that will disproportionately affect the poorer families in urban areas. (Those living in rural China do not yet have the income nor access to new dieting patterns.) There have been many debates on this topic arising from bans on fast food restaurants in several US cities, Cambridge, MA among them. The Becker-Posner blog points to lower cost and time-saving aspects of fast food that lure people to frequent those restaurants. Furthermore, though the comparative cost of fast food may not be much lower than buying produce and cooking (because much of what a customer pays at McDonald's pays for packaging and marketing), it is true that fresh, quality groceries are harder to come by in poorer neighborhoods. In China, this is less of a problem as many people still shop at morning markets and prefer traditional Chinese cuisine (many make the argument that the American diet is so unbalanced and over-processed is because it's not inherited from hundreds of years of successful adaptation to natural produce), though supermarket shopping is on the rise. However, due to the intense, singular focus on academic achievement--i.e. a sedentary lifestyle in which a child sits in classroom, has limited physical education, studies at multiple after-school programs, does hours of homework and tutoring on weekdays and weekends, and surfs the internet in their limited downtime--Chinese children on an unbalanced diet are more susceptible to obesity and related health problems. Affluent families have the wherewithal to pay for their children's tennis or swimming or golf lessons on top of their myriad educational costs; poor families do not. To aid those families and their children along, let's hope for the continued expansion of physical activity in cities with the rising popularity of pickup basketball and soccer games, better urban planning for parks and recreational areas, and more campaigns to alert Chinese of the dangers of unhealthy eating and living.
Linda Li, '09
lindali@fas.harvard.edu
The even more dreadful part of the story is that this is a trend that will disproportionately affect the poorer families in urban areas. (Those living in rural China do not yet have the income nor access to new dieting patterns.) There have been many debates on this topic arising from bans on fast food restaurants in several US cities, Cambridge, MA among them. The Becker-Posner blog points to lower cost and time-saving aspects of fast food that lure people to frequent those restaurants. Furthermore, though the comparative cost of fast food may not be much lower than buying produce and cooking (because much of what a customer pays at McDonald's pays for packaging and marketing), it is true that fresh, quality groceries are harder to come by in poorer neighborhoods. In China, this is less of a problem as many people still shop at morning markets and prefer traditional Chinese cuisine (many make the argument that the American diet is so unbalanced and over-processed is because it's not inherited from hundreds of years of successful adaptation to natural produce), though supermarket shopping is on the rise. However, due to the intense, singular focus on academic achievement--i.e. a sedentary lifestyle in which a child sits in classroom, has limited physical education, studies at multiple after-school programs, does hours of homework and tutoring on weekdays and weekends, and surfs the internet in their limited downtime--Chinese children on an unbalanced diet are more susceptible to obesity and related health problems. Affluent families have the wherewithal to pay for their children's tennis or swimming or golf lessons on top of their myriad educational costs; poor families do not. To aid those families and their children along, let's hope for the continued expansion of physical activity in cities with the rising popularity of pickup basketball and soccer games, better urban planning for parks and recreational areas, and more campaigns to alert Chinese of the dangers of unhealthy eating and living.
Linda Li, '09
lindali@fas.harvard.edu
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Virtual Forbidden City
The Chinese government has unveiled a new face for arguably the country's most notable historical monument, the Forbidden City (also known as the Forbidden Palace Museum), in the form of an online virtual tour and community. Forbidden City: Beyond Space and Time is an IBM and Beijing Palace Museum collaboration that allows internet users to explore, read, learn, and discuss the Forbidden City in their own homes. All this access for free, I might add (whereas an entrance ticket costs 60 RMB, an English guide 40 RMB, and additional fees for smaller museums inside--all told, about USD 20). The platform is easy to use, the English translations clear and eloquent (gasp!), and the general layout and design very Western.
As part of a broad cultural and social outreach effort to show China to the world, this is one of the boldest innovations and probably affords the most pleasurable experience of exploring the historical site. Surely this isn't the first tour of its kind in the world (Buckingham Palace, Versailles, and many others can be toured virtually for a fee), but it is a sign of the Chinese government's increasing attention to popular opinion around the world. This online portal was not put together in a matter of months like the regulations that it wantonly slaps onto its people--it stems from the unavoidable reality that the internet is the most far-reaching and therefore significant medium for people to learn and interact. Thus, what better way to extend a diplomatic hand in cultural exchange than by providing a free look into a quintessentially Chinese treasure? And, by "most pleasurable," I'm referring to this Forbidden City experience as a peaceful and solitary one; what I really mean is that it's far less interesting because visiting the palace is as much about the wonder and history of the Ming and Qing dynasties as it is about seeing the cross-cultural exchanges that take place.
Until you get to actually go to Beijing, though, do check the site out. It requires a quick registration and download. I'm curious to hear what you think of the usability of the interface and, of course, what you like about the Forbidden City itself (or a comparison of the site versus an actual visit).
Linda Li, '09
lindali@fas.harvard.edu
As part of a broad cultural and social outreach effort to show China to the world, this is one of the boldest innovations and probably affords the most pleasurable experience of exploring the historical site. Surely this isn't the first tour of its kind in the world (Buckingham Palace, Versailles, and many others can be toured virtually for a fee), but it is a sign of the Chinese government's increasing attention to popular opinion around the world. This online portal was not put together in a matter of months like the regulations that it wantonly slaps onto its people--it stems from the unavoidable reality that the internet is the most far-reaching and therefore significant medium for people to learn and interact. Thus, what better way to extend a diplomatic hand in cultural exchange than by providing a free look into a quintessentially Chinese treasure? And, by "most pleasurable," I'm referring to this Forbidden City experience as a peaceful and solitary one; what I really mean is that it's far less interesting because visiting the palace is as much about the wonder and history of the Ming and Qing dynasties as it is about seeing the cross-cultural exchanges that take place.
Until you get to actually go to Beijing, though, do check the site out. It requires a quick registration and download. I'm curious to hear what you think of the usability of the interface and, of course, what you like about the Forbidden City itself (or a comparison of the site versus an actual visit).
Linda Li, '09
lindali@fas.harvard.edu
Monday, October 20, 2008
SAT scores...
Just saw this article on SAT scores and flashed back to all those Chinatown SmartKids classes I took as a kid. I remembered doing all these computer math games that in hind sight, may have helped more than I thought.
Do you agree with recent action to limit the use of SAT scores in college admissions? Do you think the merits of this recent study showing correlation between college success and SAT scores is accurate?
Look forward to your comments!
Jeff '09
jkwong@fas
====
October 15, 2008
Does The SAT Predict College Success?
By Peter Salins
One of the hottest debates roiling American campuses today is whether the SAT and other standardized tests should continue to play a dominant role as a college admissions criterion. The main point of contention in this debate is whether the SAT or equivalent scores accurately gauge college preparedness, and whether they are valid predictors of college success, most particularly in comparison with high school grades. Behind this ostensible concern is the expressed fear that over-reliance on collegiate admissions tests will reduce "access" to college on the part of low-scoring applicants, many of them from poor or minority families and, thus, risk making American colleges and universities less demographically diverse.
First, let me address "access" and diversity: According to the most recent (2007) data, 45 percent of all colleges or universities, and 66 percent of public ones, have no admissions criteria at all. In the public sector - which accounts for three-quarters of all higher education slots - among the 34 percent of schools with some kind of admissions screen, 69 percent accept more than half of their applicants. Even among the remaining somewhat selective institutions, the majority either do not require admissions test scores or they accept most low-scoring applicants, with the result that the average verbal SAT for all college applicants is 532, and that for the math SAT is 537 (both out of a potential score of 800).
Second, regarding the sincerity of the most vociferous admissions test opponents: Virtually all of the schools calling for abandonment or down-grading of SATs and comparable admissions test have always been highly selective - and intend to remain so. There should be absolutely no confusion on this score. These places have no intention of becoming academically more diverse, meaning they are not planning to admit academically inferior poor or minority students. As predominantly rich institutions, they have an army of admissions officers able to pore over every applicant's high school transcript and other evidence of academic ability to keep recruiting the best and brightest students, even absent admissions tests. Actually, even with their "test-optional" policies, they will have access to most applicants' SAT scores anyway, because academically strong applicants will continue to take the tests to keep all their collegiate options open. If one were inclined to take a conspiratorial view of these institutions' motives, one might suspect that they were mounting this concerted campaign to assure that America's public colleges and universities remain unselective, derailing the rising admissions aspirations of those ambitious public institutions that threaten to cut into their current monopoly of gifted high school graduates.
Allied with selective private colleges in the war on SATs are elite public institutions like UC Berkeley that, in implementing their high selectivity standards, used to limit admissions to applicants with high SAT scores, but reserved a limited number of places for lower scoring African Americans and Latinos. Now, barred by state law and numerous court rulings from practicing such a blatant double standard, they have soured on standardized tests altogether.
Having lain to rest the groundless fears of denied access and diminished diversity, let's dive into the empirical heart of the controversy: whether SAT or similar tests predict collegiate academic success with reasonable accuracy. In making such a determination, we need first to have a way of measuring it. Given enormous variability in the rigor and grading standards of college courses, the best possible metric of academic success is degree completion. From the perspective of both students and society, the reason to go to college is to earn a degree, a goal whose importance is reinforced by national data that indicates the enormous economic premium associated with possessing a baccalaureate. So the empirical question behind the SAT debate can be phrased thus: how strongly are baccalaureate graduation rates correlated with students' admissions test scores, especially when compared to similar correlations based on high school grade point averages.
Fortunately, we can find answers to this question by looking at the experience of the largest university system in the United States - the State University of New York (SUNY) with over 200,000 students enrolled in its sixteen baccalaureate colleges and research universities; a set of distinctive campuses with highly varied student profiles and admissions requirements. As provost of SUNY for many years, I was deeply involved in reviewing campus admissions criteria, and I oversaw the university's institutional research operation which maintains a comprehensive student unit record system.. Given the sheer scale of SUNY, and the diversity among its campuses with respect to admissions criteria and student academic outcomes, we have a controlled experiment of sorts.
During the period that I served as Provost, all campuses were encouraged to clarify their admissions criteria and, once having decided on a specified level of selectivity, to be consistent in implementing it. Many campuses opted to remain in their historic selectivity tier (which can be characterized as "intermediate" relative to national peers), but a significant number chose to raise their admissions standards. The SUNY admissions selectivity template considers both an applicant's high school grade point average (GPA) and his/her SAT or equivalent standardized test scores, but campuses looking to raise their admissions standards focused more on SAT scores than grades. High school GPAs at SUNY have been remarkably consistent both across campuses and over time. Thus, by comparing graduation rates at SUNY campuses that raised the SAT admissions bar with those that didn't - in the context of more or less stable high school grades - we can get a pretty clear idea of whether higher SAT scores lead to higher graduation rates.
The short answer is: they do. Looking at changes in admissions profiles and 6 year graduation rates of the entering classes of 1997 and 2001 at SUNY's 16 baccalaureate institutions, a period during which some campuses became more selective and others did not, this is what we find. Among this group - encompassing a broad band of selectivity from nearly open admissions to highly selective - nine campuses chose to increase their selectivity after 1997. This group included two nationally ranked research universities (Buffalo, Stony Brook) and seven regional colleges (Brockport, Cortland, New Paltz, Old Westbury, Oneonta, Potsdam and Purchase). As noted, the move to raise selectivity standards had a much greater impact on entering students' SAT scores than on their GPAs. For the rising selectivity campuses, SAT score increases between 1997 and 2001 ranged from 4.5 percent (Cortland) to 13.3 percent (Old Westbury), while high school GPAs increased only between 2.4 and 3.7 percent, a gain almost identical to that at campuses that chose not to raise their SAT standards.
The percentage increases in six year graduation rates at the rising selectivity campuses - just over a four year period - were dramatic, ranging between 10 percent (at Stony Brook whose graduation rate went from 53.8 to 59.2) to 170 percent (at Old Westbury which went from 13.3 to 35.9). Most revealingly, the seven SUNY campuses that stuck with their prior selectivity profiles, meaning their entering students' SAT scores between 1997 and 2001 were stable or rose only modestly, actually saw their graduation rates decline. Even Binghamton, always the most selective of SUNY's research universities, maintained a flat SAT profile and saw its graduation rates decline by 2.8 percent. The most compelling evidence that higher SAT scores predict higher graduation rates can be gleaned by looking at the experiences of campuses with nearly identical student profiles in 1997.
I will highlight the graduation rate experiences of three pairs of comparable SUNY campuses that, between 1997 and 2001 took divergent paths with respect to SAT admissions: two research universities with about 17,000 students (Stony Brook/Albany), two large urban colleges (Brockport/Oswego) with enrollment of about 8,000, and two 5000 student small town liberal arts colleges (Oneonta/Plattsburgh). In each case, in 1997 these pairs had similar admissions profiles with respect to high school GPAs (high 80s for the universities; mid-80s for the colleges). The only distinguishing difference among the campuses in each pair was that by 2001, one school admitted freshmen with significantly higher SAT scores, and the other one didn't. At all of these schools high school GPAs of entering freshman rose modestly between 1997 and 2001: about 2 percent.
In each case, the campus that raised its SAT bar saw a substantial gain in graduation rates - in only four years! Stony Brook and Albany: Between 1997 and 2001, Stony Brook increased its average entering freshman SAT score by 7.9 percent to 1164, and its graduation rate rose by 10 percent to 59.2; in this interval Albany's freshman SAT increased by only 1.3 percent and its graduation rate actually fell 2.7 percent to 64.0. Brockport and Oswego: Brockport increased its average freshman SAT score by 5.7 percent to 1080, and its graduation rate increased by 18.7 percent to 58.5; at the same time Oswego's freshman SAT rose only 3.0 percent and its graduation rate fell 1.9 percent to 52.6. Oneonta and Plattsburgh: Oneonta raised its freshman SAT score by 6.2 percent to 1069, and saw its graduation rate rise by 25.3 percent to 58.9; Plattsburgh's freshman SAT increased by only 1.3 percent and its graduation rate fell sharply by 6.3 percent to 55.1.
Other examples: SUNY Old Westbury, always the university system's academically weakest campus, was able to improve its graduation rate by over 170 percent in four years after it instituted higher SAT requirements, increasing its entering students' SAT scores by 13.3 percent between 1997 and 2001. Purchase College, a highly specialized place centered on the fine and performing arts, increased SAT scores by 10.3 percent, and saw graduation rates rise by 22.4 percent.
The common denominator in all of these SUNY examples is that among campuses with highly differentiated missions, across a very wide band of admissions selectivity, all enrolling freshmen whose high school grade point averages improved by the same modest amount (about 2 to 3 percent), only those campuses whose SAT scores improved substantially over this very brief four year interval saw gains in the most valid measure of academic success: graduation rates.
Is this the empirical last word on the SAT controversy? Probably not, but it should go a long way in countering those that challenge the value of standardized tests in predicting academic success. Given the sheer diversity and size of New York's State University system and the systematic implementation of clear cut shifts in admissions policy by many of its campuses we have as good a laboratory for examining this hypothesis as any in the higher education landscape. As fresh data becomes available, this pattern may change, but I doubt it.
--------------------------------------
Peter D. Salins served as Provost of the State University of New York (SUNY) System from January 1997 to October, 2006, responsible for university-wide academic planning and standards, including admissions and instititional research. He iscurrently University Professor of Political Science and Director of the Graduate Program in Public Policy at Stony Brook University.
Do you agree with recent action to limit the use of SAT scores in college admissions? Do you think the merits of this recent study showing correlation between college success and SAT scores is accurate?
Look forward to your comments!
Jeff '09
jkwong@fas
====
October 15, 2008
Does The SAT Predict College Success?
By Peter Salins
One of the hottest debates roiling American campuses today is whether the SAT and other standardized tests should continue to play a dominant role as a college admissions criterion. The main point of contention in this debate is whether the SAT or equivalent scores accurately gauge college preparedness, and whether they are valid predictors of college success, most particularly in comparison with high school grades. Behind this ostensible concern is the expressed fear that over-reliance on collegiate admissions tests will reduce "access" to college on the part of low-scoring applicants, many of them from poor or minority families and, thus, risk making American colleges and universities less demographically diverse.
First, let me address "access" and diversity: According to the most recent (2007) data, 45 percent of all colleges or universities, and 66 percent of public ones, have no admissions criteria at all. In the public sector - which accounts for three-quarters of all higher education slots - among the 34 percent of schools with some kind of admissions screen, 69 percent accept more than half of their applicants. Even among the remaining somewhat selective institutions, the majority either do not require admissions test scores or they accept most low-scoring applicants, with the result that the average verbal SAT for all college applicants is 532, and that for the math SAT is 537 (both out of a potential score of 800).
Second, regarding the sincerity of the most vociferous admissions test opponents: Virtually all of the schools calling for abandonment or down-grading of SATs and comparable admissions test have always been highly selective - and intend to remain so. There should be absolutely no confusion on this score. These places have no intention of becoming academically more diverse, meaning they are not planning to admit academically inferior poor or minority students. As predominantly rich institutions, they have an army of admissions officers able to pore over every applicant's high school transcript and other evidence of academic ability to keep recruiting the best and brightest students, even absent admissions tests. Actually, even with their "test-optional" policies, they will have access to most applicants' SAT scores anyway, because academically strong applicants will continue to take the tests to keep all their collegiate options open. If one were inclined to take a conspiratorial view of these institutions' motives, one might suspect that they were mounting this concerted campaign to assure that America's public colleges and universities remain unselective, derailing the rising admissions aspirations of those ambitious public institutions that threaten to cut into their current monopoly of gifted high school graduates.
Allied with selective private colleges in the war on SATs are elite public institutions like UC Berkeley that, in implementing their high selectivity standards, used to limit admissions to applicants with high SAT scores, but reserved a limited number of places for lower scoring African Americans and Latinos. Now, barred by state law and numerous court rulings from practicing such a blatant double standard, they have soured on standardized tests altogether.
Having lain to rest the groundless fears of denied access and diminished diversity, let's dive into the empirical heart of the controversy: whether SAT or similar tests predict collegiate academic success with reasonable accuracy. In making such a determination, we need first to have a way of measuring it. Given enormous variability in the rigor and grading standards of college courses, the best possible metric of academic success is degree completion. From the perspective of both students and society, the reason to go to college is to earn a degree, a goal whose importance is reinforced by national data that indicates the enormous economic premium associated with possessing a baccalaureate. So the empirical question behind the SAT debate can be phrased thus: how strongly are baccalaureate graduation rates correlated with students' admissions test scores, especially when compared to similar correlations based on high school grade point averages.
Fortunately, we can find answers to this question by looking at the experience of the largest university system in the United States - the State University of New York (SUNY) with over 200,000 students enrolled in its sixteen baccalaureate colleges and research universities; a set of distinctive campuses with highly varied student profiles and admissions requirements. As provost of SUNY for many years, I was deeply involved in reviewing campus admissions criteria, and I oversaw the university's institutional research operation which maintains a comprehensive student unit record system.. Given the sheer scale of SUNY, and the diversity among its campuses with respect to admissions criteria and student academic outcomes, we have a controlled experiment of sorts.
During the period that I served as Provost, all campuses were encouraged to clarify their admissions criteria and, once having decided on a specified level of selectivity, to be consistent in implementing it. Many campuses opted to remain in their historic selectivity tier (which can be characterized as "intermediate" relative to national peers), but a significant number chose to raise their admissions standards. The SUNY admissions selectivity template considers both an applicant's high school grade point average (GPA) and his/her SAT or equivalent standardized test scores, but campuses looking to raise their admissions standards focused more on SAT scores than grades. High school GPAs at SUNY have been remarkably consistent both across campuses and over time. Thus, by comparing graduation rates at SUNY campuses that raised the SAT admissions bar with those that didn't - in the context of more or less stable high school grades - we can get a pretty clear idea of whether higher SAT scores lead to higher graduation rates.
The short answer is: they do. Looking at changes in admissions profiles and 6 year graduation rates of the entering classes of 1997 and 2001 at SUNY's 16 baccalaureate institutions, a period during which some campuses became more selective and others did not, this is what we find. Among this group - encompassing a broad band of selectivity from nearly open admissions to highly selective - nine campuses chose to increase their selectivity after 1997. This group included two nationally ranked research universities (Buffalo, Stony Brook) and seven regional colleges (Brockport, Cortland, New Paltz, Old Westbury, Oneonta, Potsdam and Purchase). As noted, the move to raise selectivity standards had a much greater impact on entering students' SAT scores than on their GPAs. For the rising selectivity campuses, SAT score increases between 1997 and 2001 ranged from 4.5 percent (Cortland) to 13.3 percent (Old Westbury), while high school GPAs increased only between 2.4 and 3.7 percent, a gain almost identical to that at campuses that chose not to raise their SAT standards.
The percentage increases in six year graduation rates at the rising selectivity campuses - just over a four year period - were dramatic, ranging between 10 percent (at Stony Brook whose graduation rate went from 53.8 to 59.2) to 170 percent (at Old Westbury which went from 13.3 to 35.9). Most revealingly, the seven SUNY campuses that stuck with their prior selectivity profiles, meaning their entering students' SAT scores between 1997 and 2001 were stable or rose only modestly, actually saw their graduation rates decline. Even Binghamton, always the most selective of SUNY's research universities, maintained a flat SAT profile and saw its graduation rates decline by 2.8 percent. The most compelling evidence that higher SAT scores predict higher graduation rates can be gleaned by looking at the experiences of campuses with nearly identical student profiles in 1997.
I will highlight the graduation rate experiences of three pairs of comparable SUNY campuses that, between 1997 and 2001 took divergent paths with respect to SAT admissions: two research universities with about 17,000 students (Stony Brook/Albany), two large urban colleges (Brockport/Oswego) with enrollment of about 8,000, and two 5000 student small town liberal arts colleges (Oneonta/Plattsburgh). In each case, in 1997 these pairs had similar admissions profiles with respect to high school GPAs (high 80s for the universities; mid-80s for the colleges). The only distinguishing difference among the campuses in each pair was that by 2001, one school admitted freshmen with significantly higher SAT scores, and the other one didn't. At all of these schools high school GPAs of entering freshman rose modestly between 1997 and 2001: about 2 percent.
In each case, the campus that raised its SAT bar saw a substantial gain in graduation rates - in only four years! Stony Brook and Albany: Between 1997 and 2001, Stony Brook increased its average entering freshman SAT score by 7.9 percent to 1164, and its graduation rate rose by 10 percent to 59.2; in this interval Albany's freshman SAT increased by only 1.3 percent and its graduation rate actually fell 2.7 percent to 64.0. Brockport and Oswego: Brockport increased its average freshman SAT score by 5.7 percent to 1080, and its graduation rate increased by 18.7 percent to 58.5; at the same time Oswego's freshman SAT rose only 3.0 percent and its graduation rate fell 1.9 percent to 52.6. Oneonta and Plattsburgh: Oneonta raised its freshman SAT score by 6.2 percent to 1069, and saw its graduation rate rise by 25.3 percent to 58.9; Plattsburgh's freshman SAT increased by only 1.3 percent and its graduation rate fell sharply by 6.3 percent to 55.1.
Other examples: SUNY Old Westbury, always the university system's academically weakest campus, was able to improve its graduation rate by over 170 percent in four years after it instituted higher SAT requirements, increasing its entering students' SAT scores by 13.3 percent between 1997 and 2001. Purchase College, a highly specialized place centered on the fine and performing arts, increased SAT scores by 10.3 percent, and saw graduation rates rise by 22.4 percent.
The common denominator in all of these SUNY examples is that among campuses with highly differentiated missions, across a very wide band of admissions selectivity, all enrolling freshmen whose high school grade point averages improved by the same modest amount (about 2 to 3 percent), only those campuses whose SAT scores improved substantially over this very brief four year interval saw gains in the most valid measure of academic success: graduation rates.
Is this the empirical last word on the SAT controversy? Probably not, but it should go a long way in countering those that challenge the value of standardized tests in predicting academic success. Given the sheer diversity and size of New York's State University system and the systematic implementation of clear cut shifts in admissions policy by many of its campuses we have as good a laboratory for examining this hypothesis as any in the higher education landscape. As fresh data becomes available, this pattern may change, but I doubt it.
--------------------------------------
Peter D. Salins served as Provost of the State University of New York (SUNY) System from January 1997 to October, 2006, responsible for university-wide academic planning and standards, including admissions and instititional research. He iscurrently University Professor of Political Science and Director of the Graduate Program in Public Policy at Stony Brook University.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Don't Say What You Want To
Imagine sitting down to write an essay and having to think twice before you write each sentence because the wrong words could land you in prison. Imagine trying to surf the Internet and finding multiple web sites blocked. Imagine looking for books to read for leisure and becoming dismayed at the limited selection of un-banned literature.
These cases may sound extreme, but this is similar to the state of freedom of speech and freedom of press in China, with the intense censorship laws that are put into place by the government. China’s constitution provides freedom of speech and press for its citizens, but it also states that citizens must protect “the security, honor, and interests of the motherland.” Thus, this stipulation leads to the detaining of journalists and activists, by the overarching government media watchdog, the Communist Party’s Central Propaganda Department. The CPD provides guidelines for journalists and limits the amount of coverage for controversial issues—like the state of affairs in Tibet and relations with Taiwan.
Journalists who do not abide to the strict guidelines face dismissals and demotions, charges of libel, fines, and imprisonment. Additionally, the government has closed down news outlets for distributing what was allegedly "internal information."
It is difficult to fathom how a country that is rapidly becoming one of the world’s leading countries in terms of technological and industrial advancements can be so behind in the matter of free speech. In order for China to continue its rise on the world stage, the government must recognize the importance of granting its citizens greater freedoms. A country cannot successfully thrive if citizens are constantly living in fear and being kept in the dark regarding prevalent national issues. should realize that allowing freedom of speech and freedom of press will not harm citizens but inform and educate them. As philosopher John Dewey said, "Education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform. Through education, society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move."
In recent news, the Internet research group, Citizen lab revealed in an October 8, 2008 report that the Chinese authorities have gone to the extent of monitoring Skype calls for citizens. They look for politically sensitive keywords like "Tibet" and "democracy" and references to the Chinese Communist Party and the tainted milk case in Skype text message exchanges. When these words are found, information about the messages is logged. Thus, this monitoring is no better than tapping phone lines. The resulting lack of privacy only leads to a more intense limit of speech for citizens. If Chinese authorities continue in this direction, what’s to stop them from coming into people’s houses and sitting in at their dinner conversations? Who’s to stop them from imprisoning people due to overheard exchanges on the street?
The country cannot progress with these heavy crackdowns on freedom of speech, press, and privacy. Their chance for recognition on the world stage relies on their ability to reform their record of human rights violations. In order to successfully achieve this, they must start by recognizing the necessity of basic freedoms for their citizens.
-Sanyee
These cases may sound extreme, but this is similar to the state of freedom of speech and freedom of press in China, with the intense censorship laws that are put into place by the government. China’s constitution provides freedom of speech and press for its citizens, but it also states that citizens must protect “the security, honor, and interests of the motherland.” Thus, this stipulation leads to the detaining of journalists and activists, by the overarching government media watchdog, the Communist Party’s Central Propaganda Department. The CPD provides guidelines for journalists and limits the amount of coverage for controversial issues—like the state of affairs in Tibet and relations with Taiwan.
Journalists who do not abide to the strict guidelines face dismissals and demotions, charges of libel, fines, and imprisonment. Additionally, the government has closed down news outlets for distributing what was allegedly "internal information."
It is difficult to fathom how a country that is rapidly becoming one of the world’s leading countries in terms of technological and industrial advancements can be so behind in the matter of free speech. In order for China to continue its rise on the world stage, the government must recognize the importance of granting its citizens greater freedoms. A country cannot successfully thrive if citizens are constantly living in fear and being kept in the dark regarding prevalent national issues. should realize that allowing freedom of speech and freedom of press will not harm citizens but inform and educate them. As philosopher John Dewey said, "Education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform. Through education, society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to move."
In recent news, the Internet research group, Citizen lab revealed in an October 8, 2008 report that the Chinese authorities have gone to the extent of monitoring Skype calls for citizens. They look for politically sensitive keywords like "Tibet" and "democracy" and references to the Chinese Communist Party and the tainted milk case in Skype text message exchanges. When these words are found, information about the messages is logged. Thus, this monitoring is no better than tapping phone lines. The resulting lack of privacy only leads to a more intense limit of speech for citizens. If Chinese authorities continue in this direction, what’s to stop them from coming into people’s houses and sitting in at their dinner conversations? Who’s to stop them from imprisoning people due to overheard exchanges on the street?
The country cannot progress with these heavy crackdowns on freedom of speech, press, and privacy. Their chance for recognition on the world stage relies on their ability to reform their record of human rights violations. In order to successfully achieve this, they must start by recognizing the necessity of basic freedoms for their citizens.
-Sanyee
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
6 Harbin police officers bludgeon 22 year old college student to death
On October 11 at around 10 pm, 6 Harbin police officers bludgeoned a Harbin Atheletic Academy student to death; they dragged him out in an apparent bar room brawl, disrobed him and beat him violently. A 22-year old was killed as a result.
Is this a story emblematic of the lack of rule of law in China? of the growth in violence in urban China? of police brutality?
The video of the incident can be found below:
http://video.cctv.com/opus/178801.html
-Jeff
jkwong@fas
Is this a story emblematic of the lack of rule of law in China? of the growth in violence in urban China? of police brutality?
The video of the incident can be found below:
http://video.cctv.com/opus/178801.html
-Jeff
jkwong@fas
The Sichuan Earthquake - Half a Year Later
It’s been just about half a year since one of the most disastrous earthquakes in recent history struck the Southwestern province of Sichuan, China. This earthquake, which occurred in the afternoon on May 12th, 2008, with a magnitude of 8.0 on the Richter scale, was the biggest Earthquake to hit China since the 1976 Tangshen earthquake. The death toll currently stands at 69,227, with 17,923 missing and 374,643 injured. The Chinese government has spent over 80 billion yuan (11 billion U.S dollars) on earthquake relief.
Recently, On October 8th, The Chinese party held a ceremony to honor those who contributed to the relief efforts after the Earthquake. People in attendance included paramount leader Hu Jintao, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang and many other prominent leaders. Awards were presented those who helped in the relief effort, including soldiers, police, teachers, construction workers, and volunteers. A total of 319 institutions and 522 individuals were honored at this ceremony. There were 5 awards that were handed out posthumously to those who gave their life in order to save others. Among them was a 23 year-old teacher named Gou Xiaochao. He was in a classroom at Yong’an Village’s primary school when the Earthquake began. Acting quickly, he herded the students out of the building. His heroic actions saved the lives of many children, but in the process, he was buried in the debris. He died en-route to the hospital. He was married only 10 days before.
It’s selfless actions like Guo’s that allowed the Chinese to recover so quickly from such a devastating Earthquake. As Hu Jintao puts it, “ we organized the fastest quake relief work with the most people mobilized in China’s history, saved as many as possible lives and minimized the losses from the disaster.” Rescuers dragged over 84,000 survivors from the rubble. Over 2.6 million victims received medical treatment. Financial aid has been given to over 10 million victims, which include over 250,000 orphans. People from all blocks of life have made donations. Survivors and victims were supplied with tents, quilts, garments, and temporary housing. As the rescue effort proceeds, this year’s focus in recover is the construction of buildings, intellectual support, and industry cooperation. So far, of the roughly 53,300 km of damaged roads, 53,000 km have been fully restored. There are 39 new programs aimed at promoting the construction of new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals.
The plan is in three or less years, Sichuan and its surrounding provinces will be completely rehabilitated to its former pre-quake state or better.
-PatrickPanda Diplomacy Finally Reaches Taiwan
China’s panda diplomacy means the practice of giving countries the rare animal as a token of peace and friendship. The most notable highlight of panda diplomacy is when Mao Zedong gave Richard Nixon the America’s first two panda bears in 1972 during Nixon’s visit to China. The pandas were so popular that 20,000 people visited the pandas the first day they were on display at the National Zoo in Washington, D. C.
In 2005, Mainland China offered two pandas to Taiwan during opposition party leader Lien Chan’s visit to China. While the idea was popular with the Taiwanese public, Taiwanese Prime Minister said he was unlikely to accept because to do so would acknowledge the PRC's “one China” position.
However, the relationship between China and Taiwan has slowly grown friendlier after the election of Taiwan President Ma Ying-Jeou. And Ma has accepted an offer from China, which plans to send two giant pandas to the Taipei Zoo. In return, The Taipei city zoo will donate the native sika deer, a critically endangered species, and a Formosan serow, a small but agile mountain goat that's also seldom seen anymore in Taiwan. The two pandas’ names put together mean “Unity” while goat and deer names mean “Forever”. The upcoming arrival of the pandas at Taipei Zoo has already caused a stir amongst the younger generations of the city who have expressed their fondness for the cuddly bears.
-Tony
In 2005, Mainland China offered two pandas to Taiwan during opposition party leader Lien Chan’s visit to China. While the idea was popular with the Taiwanese public, Taiwanese Prime Minister said he was unlikely to accept because to do so would acknowledge the PRC's “one China” position.
However, the relationship between China and Taiwan has slowly grown friendlier after the election of Taiwan President Ma Ying-Jeou. And Ma has accepted an offer from China, which plans to send two giant pandas to the Taipei Zoo. In return, The Taipei city zoo will donate the native sika deer, a critically endangered species, and a Formosan serow, a small but agile mountain goat that's also seldom seen anymore in Taiwan. The two pandas’ names put together mean “Unity” while goat and deer names mean “Forever”. The upcoming arrival of the pandas at Taipei Zoo has already caused a stir amongst the younger generations of the city who have expressed their fondness for the cuddly bears.
-Tony
Sunday, October 12, 2008
China and Energy - Not What You Would Think
As the world’s largest population and fastest growing economy, China’s booming energy demand has coincided with a new era of eco-consciousness. Consequently, China’s energy infrastructure has come under intense global scrutiny. One of the biggest controversies surrounding the recent Beijing Olympics was the air quality – with its high particulate pollution, literally visible to the naked eye, would Beijing be a safe place to host scores of athletes? In terms of the big picture, what did this pollution say about China’s energy grid? While China undoubtedly has air- and water-quality issues that need to be addressed, attentions are often focused in the wrong places for the wrong reasons. Media and environmental groups are quick to cite China’s coal-fired plants as the source of the problem, which spring up at a rate of about 3-4 additional 500 MW plants a week; however, a recent study published by MIT professors Edward Steinfeld and Richard Lester have debunked the coal-fired myth. “The kinds of technology currently being adopted in China are not cheap. They're not buying junk, and in some cases the plants are employing state-of-the-art technology… [Findings suggest that emissions] depend almost entirely on the quality of the coal they use. When they're hit by price spikes, they buy low-grade coal, says Steinfeld. “The physical infrastructure of China's energy system is not an impediment;” rather, “new regulatory efforts probably need to be focused on the mines and coal markets.”
While efforts should be made to purify coal technologies in the short run, alternative energy technologies need to be developed to ensure sustainability for the long run. Contrary to common belief, China is a world leader in both the manufacturing and implementation of alternative energy infrastructure. The Three Gorges Dam in Sandouping, Yichang, Hubei, China is the largest in the world, capable of generating 22,500 MW. In 2005, China ranked 10th in the world for in-grid wind energy capabilities at 1,288 MW, but at the same time ranked 1st in the world for off-grid wind energy by a large margin with over 200,000 independent generators. China’s in-grid wind generation capabilities are planned to reach 30 GW by 2020, matching the Three Gorges Dam in capability. With current policies, wind capabilities are actually projected to reach 50 GW; if the PROC was to fully back wind policy, that projected value rises to over 120 GW in the same amount of time, accounting for 10% of all in-grid power generation. As of late 2007, China owned 60% of installed solar capability in the world.
One must understand the statistics before passing judgment. China has 20% of the world’s population but consumes only 10% of the world's energy and 4% of the world's oil, while the USA has only 5% of the world population and consumes 23% of the world's energy and 25% of the world's oil. China is the largest producer of C02, releasing 6.2 billion metric tons in 2006, while the US released 5.8 billion metric tons in the same year; however, in terms of per-capita production, the USA produced four times more, or 19 metric tons per capita, than China at 4.9 metric tons per capita.
There is no doubt that China has pollution issues that need to be addressed. As the world’s largest and fastest growing manufacturer and exporter of goods, it is unfeasible for China to just “cut” energy demand. Instead, source regulation needs to be implemented in the short-term and alternative energy infrastructure needs to be further implemented and developed for the long-term. At the same time, other industrialized nations need to look at their own per capita numbers and infrastructure capabilities and look beyond China’s unfortunate stigma and instead see its humongous potential.
-Kane
While efforts should be made to purify coal technologies in the short run, alternative energy technologies need to be developed to ensure sustainability for the long run. Contrary to common belief, China is a world leader in both the manufacturing and implementation of alternative energy infrastructure. The Three Gorges Dam in Sandouping, Yichang, Hubei, China is the largest in the world, capable of generating 22,500 MW. In 2005, China ranked 10th in the world for in-grid wind energy capabilities at 1,288 MW, but at the same time ranked 1st in the world for off-grid wind energy by a large margin with over 200,000 independent generators. China’s in-grid wind generation capabilities are planned to reach 30 GW by 2020, matching the Three Gorges Dam in capability. With current policies, wind capabilities are actually projected to reach 50 GW; if the PROC was to fully back wind policy, that projected value rises to over 120 GW in the same amount of time, accounting for 10% of all in-grid power generation. As of late 2007, China owned 60% of installed solar capability in the world.
One must understand the statistics before passing judgment. China has 20% of the world’s population but consumes only 10% of the world's energy and 4% of the world's oil, while the USA has only 5% of the world population and consumes 23% of the world's energy and 25% of the world's oil. China is the largest producer of C02, releasing 6.2 billion metric tons in 2006, while the US released 5.8 billion metric tons in the same year; however, in terms of per-capita production, the USA produced four times more, or 19 metric tons per capita, than China at 4.9 metric tons per capita.
There is no doubt that China has pollution issues that need to be addressed. As the world’s largest and fastest growing manufacturer and exporter of goods, it is unfeasible for China to just “cut” energy demand. Instead, source regulation needs to be implemented in the short-term and alternative energy infrastructure needs to be further implemented and developed for the long-term. At the same time, other industrialized nations need to look at their own per capita numbers and infrastructure capabilities and look beyond China’s unfortunate stigma and instead see its humongous potential.
-Kane
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Sex Education in China
Sometimes, it is absolutely unbelievable the kind of values Mainland China is now teaching the next generation. In the area of sex education, they are even more advanced than socialist European nations apparently... Are 5000 years of Confucian conservatism going to be washed out by libertine sexual mores?
It is common knowledge that Mao Tse-tung and others slept around in those cozy caves in Yen'an and communism is famous for its professed socialization of family values... but are these pictures and comments a little too far and a little too much?
You be the judge. The pictures for this post are from MOP, a popular Chinese site:
http://dzh.mop.com/mainFrame.jsp?url=http://dzh.mop.com/topic/readSub_8857375_0_0.html
Some of my translations of the book used for 1st grade classrooms:
"The Boy's sexual organ contains a very important organ called the testicle. Kids call them "little eggs." The testicles are located in the sack; the sack is what holds the "little eggs." Normal boys have two testicles, one on the left side and one on the right side. We can use our hands to touch the testicles located in the sack"
A caption for the cartoon of testicles,
Sperm A: Older brother (lau hsiong), I cannot come down!
Testicle A: Hey, come down quick!
Testicle B: It is cold down here, let's go up!
-- Jeff jkwong@fas
It is common knowledge that Mao Tse-tung and others slept around in those cozy caves in Yen'an and communism is famous for its professed socialization of family values... but are these pictures and comments a little too far and a little too much?
You be the judge. The pictures for this post are from MOP, a popular Chinese site:
http://dzh.mop.com/mainFrame.jsp?url=http://dzh.mop.com/topic/readSub_8857375_0_0.html
Some of my translations of the book used for 1st grade classrooms:
"The Boy's sexual organ contains a very important organ called the testicle. Kids call them "little eggs." The testicles are located in the sack; the sack is what holds the "little eggs." Normal boys have two testicles, one on the left side and one on the right side. We can use our hands to touch the testicles located in the sack"
A caption for the cartoon of testicles,
Sperm A: Older brother (lau hsiong), I cannot come down!
Testicle A: Hey, come down quick!
Testicle B: It is cold down here, let's go up!
-- Jeff jkwong@fas
Friday, October 3, 2008
Spilt Milk - Should we be crying?
In recent news, milk from China has been found to be tainted with melamine, a toxic substance that has already made babies all over the country ill. The government has tried to reassure panicked parents that it is doing its best to track down, stop, and punish the source of these chemicals, but since then the tainted milk has been found in products as far as Europe and even here in the US. Some interesting questions to consider at this point:
-How long has the milk been tainted? Melamine, according to the BBC, is not harmful to older children or adults, in small amounts. And, the melamine might have been added to the milk "on purpose", to make it look more protein-ful. (BBC article 1)
-How much of the reaction, both within China and internationally, is just due to panic? (Munchhausen's, anybody?)
-How do other countries' food importing laws work, given that so much "tainted" food passed through their borders?
-What other kinds of food, from China and elsewhere, contains "additives" that could be causing long-term health effects? (To be taken with a grain of salt)
Possibly the most "exciting" and news-worthy event to happen to China since the end of the Olympics, the whole milk incident is hardly being swept under the rug by the Chinese government. Now with a new reputation of being able to keep up with the rest of the world, the Chinese government has already done much to try and prevent the incident from getting worse (BBC article 2)
But, despite however well the Chinese government responds to this incident, there's a deeper problem. Take a trip to China and you can see the entire range of food cleanliness, a roadside meat roaster for every top-of-the-line, upper-class restaurant. There are so many people selling food through one way or another that whatever governmental department in charge cannot possibly hope to keep up a high standard of clean food. Certainly the larger restaurants tailoring to the rich and the foreign will make sure they get their act together (hopefully), but as for those guys selling roasted meat on the street corners of Shanghai, who knows what was put on whatever-that-was...
A major problem for China that's usually masked by all the hubbub about political and economic news is that sooner or later, China will have to enforce laws that are for the good of the collective whole. And enforcing a new law, a new standard, a new procedure over 1.3 billion people (and counting) is never an easy task.
-How long has the milk been tainted? Melamine, according to the BBC, is not harmful to older children or adults, in small amounts. And, the melamine might have been added to the milk "on purpose", to make it look more protein-ful. (BBC article 1)
-How much of the reaction, both within China and internationally, is just due to panic? (Munchhausen's, anybody?)
-How do other countries' food importing laws work, given that so much "tainted" food passed through their borders?
-What other kinds of food, from China and elsewhere, contains "additives" that could be causing long-term health effects? (To be taken with a grain of salt)
Possibly the most "exciting" and news-worthy event to happen to China since the end of the Olympics, the whole milk incident is hardly being swept under the rug by the Chinese government. Now with a new reputation of being able to keep up with the rest of the world, the Chinese government has already done much to try and prevent the incident from getting worse (BBC article 2)
But, despite however well the Chinese government responds to this incident, there's a deeper problem. Take a trip to China and you can see the entire range of food cleanliness, a roadside meat roaster for every top-of-the-line, upper-class restaurant. There are so many people selling food through one way or another that whatever governmental department in charge cannot possibly hope to keep up a high standard of clean food. Certainly the larger restaurants tailoring to the rich and the foreign will make sure they get their act together (hopefully), but as for those guys selling roasted meat on the street corners of Shanghai, who knows what was put on whatever-that-was...
A major problem for China that's usually masked by all the hubbub about political and economic news is that sooner or later, China will have to enforce laws that are for the good of the collective whole. And enforcing a new law, a new standard, a new procedure over 1.3 billion people (and counting) is never an easy task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)