Talk:Harvard Girl

Moar
r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LexisNexis
 * LexisNexis
 * LexisNexis
 * LexisNexis
 * LexisNexis

Impact
first reading the article i thought it was kinda boastful. But the impact section is very well written to balance both sides of view. Im amazed that an 'undergraduate' degree would spawn a book like this, I would have expected a book about making millions or maybe a 'graduate' degree. One thing that i dont think i saw was, Was she the first chinese girl to get into harvard? Though its interesting its also sad, How can holding ice make you smarter? id imagine youd grow up pretty 'cold' as a person. Few more things id like to know; Is the book even accurate Is there any information about the scholarship she received?., Did she get good grades?., Did she struggle there? Were people upset with her when they found out about the book, or proud and suportive? I think the article could use more follow up to what the person did after, but i guess its an article about the book not the person. Anyway I want to know more so i guess the article served its purpose Landlord77 (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you enjoyed it. To be honest, I have not read the book, I am only familiar with it through having lived in China briefly and through research I have done on the Chinese higher education system (and this book and Liu's name come up a lot when you're talking about Chinese education).  The impact it has had is undeniable; the general way of thinking among a lot of people is that there is Harvard and then there are other schools, and if you don't go to Harvard then you're just not in the same league (I think that is slowly changing with the educational reform that's going on now, but that attitude certainly isn't gone).
 * As for your questions... I don't have any sources saying whether or not she was the first Chinese student at Harvard, but I would imagine she almost certainly wasn't. There's probably a way to look at '90s records and see for sure.  As for the book's accuracy, I don't know without reading it, but I imagine it's just about as accurate as any "self-help" book&mdash;some things that are helpful if you read them with an open mind, lots of things that need to be taken with a grain of salt.  As for her grades, I don't know, I imagine she did well (and she got a job in a prestigious investment firm after)...one of the things that a lot of the articles on this book mention is specifically that people don't really know what she did after school, as her getting into Harvard has overshadowed everything she did after.  (That's one of the reasons a lot of top Chinese students now are saying "I don't want to be compared to 'Harvard Girl'"&mdash;people perceive her as being famous just for getting in, and no one really cares about what she did in school or after graduating.
 * Anyway, I will see if I can find some more information...and if you come across anything, don't hesitate to leave a note here or to add it to the article! r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added some more info about Liu herself, as requested. The Chronicle of Higher Education article by Jen Lin-Liu (linked in the References section) is specifically about Liu, rather than about the book, and has a lot of information about her, including some stuff I didn't include in the article like how she got on with her roommate and friends and stuff. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda!
Has anyone thought that this book is propaganda that has been encouraged if not outright supported by the university or the american university system?

If one searches for harvard/princeton/chicago on the chinese youtube, youku.com, one finds there several 30-minute university-produced videos which extol their respective insitutions, made specifically for chinese students in mandarin!

The result is brain drain from China. The sooner ones comes to the US the more likely it is they will stay here, rather than drift back to china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.88.165 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Harvard and the American university system had no involvement in getting this book written, published, or advertised. It was a happy coincidence that happened to benefit them (and I can guarantee you there are Harvard students who were somewhat bitter about it and saw Liu as having "sold" her life story to the media), but it wasn't a giant conspiracy or anything.  If the universities are advertising themselves to Chinese students now, it's because China is a huge and growing source of applicants and because it's very much in vogue right now; it's not because this is part of some grand conspiracy.
 * As for brain drain...actually, the truth is the opposite. These days, Chinese students who go abroad are more and more likely to ultimately go back to China; it used to be the case that they would stay abroad, but the trend has shifted a lot in recent years. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Scholarship vs. Need-Based Aid
While the sourced article states that Liu received a full scholarship, and while, yes, I agree that technically anything can fall under the term of 'scholarship', we also know that it the scholarship was need-based, not merit-based, given that Harvard offers only need-based aid, no merit-based aid (http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do): "All of our financial aid is awarded on the basis of demonstrated financial need". I don't think there's some big semantic argument to be made here, but I think it's at least conceivable that some readers will see 'full scholarship' and assume it is a merit-based scholarship, which is what that term often means. Why not, in this case, err on the side of clarity and either use Harvard's language and say 'need based financial aid', or, if you want the term scholarship in there, 'need-based scholarship'. I would think this increases clarity without any reduction in veracity.

Be namo (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance to Harvard
One of the claims in the Criticism section is "Liu gained entrance into Harvard not because of her comprehensive or well-rounded education, but by exploiting "loopholes and defects" in Harvard's admissions policy for Chinese students" (from the link : 刘亦婷利用哈佛大学招收中国学生时存在的制度漏洞和缺陷进入哈佛，根本不是综合素质教育的结果). However that's it as far as the information goes, on here as well as in the reference. So what "loopholes and defects"? How did she exploit it? The reference does not explain any of these or offer any details. This seems like a rather serious accusation, so the article definitely need to state what is it. Without any elaboration, this is an unfounded accusation.--Sevilledade (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And the statement immediately following that "or by taking advantage of guanxi, personal relationships and networks", citing this dead article, again fails to gave any details, but exist simply as an accusation. What relationship is it? What "networks" did she have? Did she come from a prominent family? Simply stating an accusation without anything else makes the statement seem quite fallacious.--Sevilledade (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the bit about guanxi needs clarification; it's already pretty obvious what that means, and for a reader who wants to know more it's all in the source, which specifically says that her mother has connections with an admissions officer named La Rui.
 * As for the "loopholes and defects", yes, I agree that clarification would be good, which is why I never removed the tag there (you did). The reference is about Xiao Hui's book, and I imagine there is much more detail about this therein, I just don't have the book. If someone has the book and has time to find the relevant section, it would be possible to expand on this (although, in the sake of summary style, I don't know how in depth it should good). In any case, it's certainly not an "unfounded accusation", there is an entire book about it and that book is clearly pointed out in two references. Furthermore, this WP article never says that we think she did any of those things; those words are firmly placed within Xiao's mouth. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That source is a Chinese "blog", is it credible? Has her parents ever responded to these accusations, or commented about Xiao Hui's book Raising Children Requires Great Wisdom: The Truth About "Harvard Girl Liu Yiting?--Sevilledade (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a blog, it's a reproduction of a published news article that happens to be posted on a blog. As you know, the original source is currently a deadlink (linkrot is pretty common when dealing with Chinese media, unfortunately), I just linked to that copy of it for your convenience. I'm still in the process of looking for an archived version of the original.
 * As for whether her parents have responded, I don't know; if you can find a response from them you are welcome to add it. but Xiao's book is out there and multiple sources report what it says (not to mention the book itself, if anyone on en-wiki finds the time to dig it up and read it), so there's no reason not to mention it here. Like I said, I have not taken any position on the issue of how Liu got into Harvard, and the WP article presents it in a neutral fashion, only saying "Xiao said this...". r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons to Liu and news attention
Several of the claims in the Criticism section, does not have references to back up. One example is the claim "many of China's top students are still compared to "Harvard Girl"", which was not in the two references cited at the end of the sentence. The contributor Rjanag stated in edit summary that "while not said in these exact words, it is obviously suggested in all these sources." What "all these sources"? And the writer wrote it based on the suggestions and impressions these articles gave? While I could not find such information in any of these articles, including The New York Times article Rjanag mentioned. Further, the next statement "admissions to top overseas universities often make big news in mainland China", is also unreferenced and was not found in the two references cited. What source mentioned admissions to top overseas universities often make big news? Just based on Cheng Wanxin and several examples listed in this article that's enough to make a conclusion that admissions to top overseas universities "often" make big news?--Sevilledade (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for your first question, numerous sources describe this comparison quite clearly, and/or quote other Chinese students not wanting to be compared to Liu (implying that they otherwise would be):
 * "'The relentless moniker of “Harvard Girl” has seemingly branded Liu for life, but also haunts the efforts of other student authors who would rather avoid the title. Kate Wang ’07, published a book called “Confessions of an American Nerd” with her father in 2003. It compared Chinese and American education systems, and Wang says she was “offended” when audience members asked her about Liu and made comparisons to “Harvard Girl.”'
 * "I'm not Liu Yiting #2"
 * "don't call me harvard girl"
 * "I didn't want to create a Liu Yiting phenomenon," Yin said
 * The point here was to describe the impact Liu and the book have had on students to follow, and that impact is pretty obvious. If you disagree with the way it's worded here you might suggest a rewording, but there's no reason to remove mention of this entirely.
 * As for the second point, basically you are objecting to the word "often"? That's fine, again, you can suggest a rewording. Replace "often" with "still" or "still occasionally" or something, or replace "make big news" with "attract substantial attention" or something like that; . Again, even if these exact words aren't in the source, you still get this impression quite clearly from most of the sources, many of which describe attention that later students have gotten or are worried about getting. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of unsourced POV content
The same unsourced POV content has been inserted repeatedly in the last week. Please provide references that support these changes.

diff1, diff2, diff3.

Thanks, MrBill3 (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)